Life without oil, natural gas and coal would most likely be nasty, brutish and short.
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Foreword:
The drumbeat for a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia continues. But few have pondered how we will supposedly generate 25 billion megawatts of total current global electricity demand using just renewable energy: wind turbines, for instance. For starters, we’re talking about some 830 million gigantic 500-foot-tall turbines – requiring a land area of some 12.5 billion acres. That’s more than twice the size of North America, all the way through Central America.
But where it really gets interesting is what life would actually be like in a totally renewable electricity world. Think back to Colonial Williamsburg – the good old days. The way they really were. Not the make-believe, idyllic version of history they teach in school these days. Read on, to take a journey to the nirvana of the “stabilized climate” future.
Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people twelve years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.
Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm.
Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!
Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.
The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.
With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.
Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.
But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.
First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries or cement kilns, manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.
Wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.
My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized and de-developed.
Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what were we able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.
Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.
Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome – or even 18th Century London, Paris, New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.
The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.
That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioids crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time.
More good news: Polluting, gas-guzzling, climate-changing cars and light trucks will be a thing of the past. Instead, you’ll have horses, oxen, donkeys, buggies and wagons again … grow millions of acres of hay to feed them – and have to dispose of millions or billions of tons of manure and urine every year.
There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with pre-industrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.
Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.
As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.
But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.
At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.
Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies and private armies).
So how about this as a better option?
Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.
Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate.
Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. (August 2017)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paul Driessen is exaggerating quite a lot.
The numbers of humans that will experience the long term effects of the demise of fossil fuels will probably be less than15% of humanity.
The other 85% will be dead in less than a couple of decades from the short term effects of a fossil fuel free utopia.
Full employment will be the order of the day for that couple of decades, digging graves by pick and shovel and shovelling ashes.
Give perhaps a half a century and the mega cities of today with their 20 millions plus inhabitants will be down to Rome size at its peak, about a million inhabitants.
Earth’s less developed areas and a even a lot of rural areas in the developed world might still have a significant percentage of their inhabitants who have access to food and water supplies and who know how to grow food crops albeit living a life that bears little or no resemblence to the comfortable well fed life style of today.
The real fossil fuel free holocaust will be deep inside of the big cities where there is no longer any concept of how food is produced or where it comes from, where there are no natural fuel and heating sources, where there is no natural large volume water supplies and where there is a piping system for water and sewerage but no city centred treatment system for their raw output and therfore disease control.
Nor the absolutely essential electrical power needed to drive the great pumps that are the main essential item that keeps both water and sewerage systems operating today in the big and mega sized cities.
And then there will be the total break down in societal structures and public mores and law and order as desperation and hunger sets in amongst the millions who never ever had any connection with or understand at all the city’s complete reliance on the natural world outside of the city limits and who know nothing at all of the role that energy and its great distrubution systems, transport systems, food production and distribution and water and sewerage systems all play in keeping disease at bay and human life today at a tolerable level of comfort and ease.
It seem highly likely that the more specialised a species becomes the less change it is able to tolerate in its environment. Western City Man is probably the most specialised of all our forms and the most vulnerable to environmental change. Country Man will live at a lower rate, grow & harvest food, draw water from wells and live in unheated / uncooled houses. Far too busy to read a book, look at the internet, shop on line or travel. Much as most of man has lived for most of time.
Alternatively and perhaps more likely: mankind, who to date has been very inventive, will solve the real problems as and when they arise. The cost of going hydrocarbon free before you have to is just too great and assumes it is THE answer. It may be the wrong answer or perhaps there is no question to answer just yet.
If you go here you can find a map of offshore windfarm area in Europe…
http://www.4coffshore.com/
Plenty of space left!
(UK has 3GW additional offshore wind under construction and at least 2GW approved)
Sure, if you don’t value anything but industrial development.
On another note, it seems to me that the law of unintended consequences could come into play here. AFAIK, no one has done any research on whether windmills are likely to have a negative impact on, well, wind. In reducing wind around the world, is it even remotely possible that this could affect the rotation of the earth, or cause other weather anomalies, as in the butterfly effect?
Just sayin…
I keep researching this. You’re right, there’s not a lot of data out there. Winds have slowed, but it cannot yet be attributed to a specific cause. I’m guessing since skyscrapers and large cities affect wind speed, turbines probably do to. The harvest of wind becomes less and less as more and more turbines go up, it seems. (Again, I am not saying the turbines caused it, only that the wind is slowing, in contrast to Al Gore’s contention that things are getting worse and more extreme.)
Hanging skeptics in 2029? If playing poker, I’d call that a tell. And Gore’s only likely prophesy.
Just a peeve: I wish people would stop calling hydrocarbons ‘fossil fuels.’ Fossils came much later than the beds of algae we get HCs from, and there’s not much carbon in them.
I was liking this article until the final paragraph, when we are informed that the greatest threats are Iran, North Korea and Islamic Terrorism. I would ask the author the question, how many terrorist attacks in the west have been carried out by Shi’a Moslems (ie from Iran)? Answer – zero. How many countries has North Korea attacked? Again zero. Has NK been attacked? Yes, by the United States, which carpet bombed the country from end to end, with no regard to civilians. I am frankly surprised at how the author has fallen in with neo con ideology.
Ahhh, excuse me. Hezbollah is the Iranian surrogate and they have attacked us.
Vincent: Agree completely, he ruined a good article with that comment.
On Driessen’s math errors, a 2012 pro-wind article in US News on a Stanford study estimated 4 million turbines for half of electrical energy needs in 2030. Half. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/10/4-million-wind-turbines-could-support-about-half-of-2030-energy-demand By the way, the pro-wind article has the good sense to recommend that 50% of electricity is a max and recommends other sources of energy. And here we are at WUWT discussing how 100% could be reasonable? And for what solid reason would we want to do this?
I also saw the number of wind turbines in the world in 2012 placed at 225,000 in response by a pro-wind group to the question of how many, (4 million divided by 225,000) 18 times the number of turbines in my region is still oppressive and perfectly capable of much of the environmental damage Driessen writes. So, 18 times the subsidies and 18 times the price hikes not counting the environmental damage and economic costs of the battery storage necessary for even 50% wind? Why? Because we can? And then double our dependency again? By way of reasonableness, I have already run my own numbers for what it would take to replace the single Illinois nuclear power plant near me with wind (permitting impermissible interment wind production) It would take a 96% increase n the number of turbines officially listed in Illinois in 2013, the fourth largest wind state in the US. In short, way, way too many to replace just the nuclear plants in Illinois.
BTW, wind industry success requires the demise of other sources of energy currently existing and the exclusion of any that might be developed in the future. And we’re paying them to do it? OOOFM. (Out of our minds.)
Side note: Do you suppose GE would withdraw from competitive technologies if planning on making 4 million turbines by 2030? And maybe another 6 million more by 2050? It’s helping make other technologies more expensive as we sleep.
Don’t forget to replace them every 20 or so years now.
25 years.
The world’s first offshore wind farm just got dismantled after successfully producing power for its 25 year design life.
solar panels however are now expected to last 30 years with minimal degradation
That would cut the losses substantially!
If @Coach Springer August 14, 2017 at 9:31 am is right and we need 4 million wind turbines for 50% power in the US, then 100% would need 8 million.
Okay, I know, the wind does not blow all the time.
So, you need to study seasonal wind patterns by area to see how many area ‘wind farms’ you you would need.
Lets say, you can split the states into 3 areas, east, mid and western areas, and the wind may not blow in one of them for 2 weeks.
You will need to build sufficient additional turbines in all areas to be able to supply an area that is currently without wind.
Also, beef up the grid lines to be able to supply double or triple power to cover for windless days.
Getting a bit expensive now?
Then you ask, what about grid stability, synchronizing, black start etc.
Wind turbines can do that if you only run them at 50% of their available power, so you always have more to deliver when required.
To make up for the 50% power loss to the system, we have to double the number of generators again.
The one thing I can’t get round currently is how to provide power to a turbine when it is disconnected from the grid due to a grid fault?
Offshore turbines have emergency diesel generators which kick in when the grid is disconnected to tower. This enables the safety systems, turning, feathering, breaking, oil pumps, cooling etc to keep the generator safe until grid power is returned. Where does the diesel fuel come from ? Replace with batteries?
So we could do it, but it would cost so much, despoil so much and not guarantee a 24×7 supply.
JEEEEEEZZZZ…
When you get one number wrong, the rest of it goes to shît, quick. Specifically, the conversion between kilowatt-HOURS and kilowatts of generation.
Everything is off in the wild claims, therein.
It doesn’t even survive the first sniff test.
25,000,000,000 megawatts is 25,000,000,000,000,000 watts. Divide by what, 7,500,000,000 people and you get 3,333,333 watts per person. Sorry … I don’t know what’d I’d even do with a megawatt. Seriously.
IF however, you divide 3,333,333 by (365 × 24) you get the more reasonable “380 watts per person at any given time, average”.
So, they confused kilowatt hours and kilowatts. And that dastardly 8,760 hours per year.
____
if 35% of our present-day total world energy were PV
& 50% of our … is wind
& 15% is hydro, then
20,000 km² needed for the PV at (20% efficiency, 15% daily availability), of the cells. Maybe 2× the land area? 3×? Whatever… its not hundreds of millions of hectares. Over 1,200,000 windmills needed in the 5 megawatt super-giant class. And hydro – worldwide – would need to be about 1,000 GW plate output, and about 500 GW average. 24, 7, 365, “50%” duty cycle.
Its nowhere near as bleak as the math-tard that put together this hubris-n-hyperventillation article is on about.
World population before the fossil fuel revolution: less than a billion.
Now: going on eight billion.
Population is roughly proportional to fossil fuel use.
‘Nuff said.
Historic proportionality trends reveal all sorts of interesting things. For instance, they reveal that if you want to help reduce global warming, you ought to become a pirate (see
).
“We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!” (to generate electricity equal to current global usage)
This is one 3-megawatt turbine per nine people on Earth, a result that doesn’t pass the giggle test. You really ought to be embarrassed to uncritically quote such obvious nonsense.
Ce pamphlet très intéressant sur l’utopie des énergies renouvelables est à rapprocher de la réflexion de Christian Gérondeau dans son livre : “Un Mythe planétaire”
Celui’ci dit que la réduction de nos énergies fossiles, que certains pays s’efforceraient d’engager, serait de toute façon vouée à l’échec. Car d’autres pays, notamment les plus pauvres, — ceux qui ont le plus besoin de ces énergies-là –, consommeraient ce que les autres n’auraient pas voulu utiliser.
Lorsque nos prophètes réaliseront que celà est irréalisable, peut-être réviseront-ils leur jugement sur la catastrophe climatique auto-suggérée !?!
…..Ce serait une bonne chose sur la sérénité d’un débat indispensable, et finalement positif, sur le climat et sur l’utilisation de l’énergie !
Climatiquement vôtre. JEAN
[I couldn’t have said it better myself! -mod]