Energy Realism: The Foundation and Future of Human Progress

By Scott W. Tinker

The world faces a defining challenge: how to provide affordable, reliable energy for a growing population while also reducing environmental impacts.

Too often, this is framed as a false choice — “fossil fuels” versus “renewables,” economic growth versus environmental stewardship, “dirty” versus “clean.” This binary framing implies that simple, clear options exist. But in the real world they don’t.

Fortunately, many in the public, and even some politicians, are waking up. Energy realism is on the rise.

Energy realism begins with a simple truth: energy is a means not an end. Energy powers everything: hospitals, schools, transportation systems, food production, communications networks, etc. Affordable and reliable energy lifts people from poverty, extends life expectancy, improves education, and creates opportunity. Absent that, human progress struggles to get off the ground, or it declines where it once existed.

Over eight billion people share our planet, and billions still aspire to a standard of living that many in developed nations take for granted. Billions lack access to reliable electricity or rely on wood and dung for cooking and heating. As both economies and populations grow, global energy demand will continue to rise.

Ignoring this reality does not make it disappear.

Scenarios that show a decline in future global energy demand, like the IEA’s 2021 Net Zero Energy report, aren’t aspirational, they’re disingenuous. The question is not whether the world will use more energy. It will. The question is how to increase affordable, reliable energy with the least environmental impact.

Wind and solar have achieved remarkable growth rates and generation cost reductions over the past decade, and they will play a role in the energy future. However, energy realism requires acknowledging their limitations and trade-offs, as well as their strengths.

Wind and solar are self-evidently intermittent resources. Large-scale deployment requires expensive transmission infrastructure, and redundant storage and backup generation systems to make them reliable. Creating reliability from unreliable sources makes them more expensive for consumers.

At the same time coal, oil and natural gas continue to supply more than 80% of global energy needs. They fuel transportation, provide feedstocks for countless products, and support dispatchable global electricity generation.

Energy realism recognizes that the world’s energy system cannot be transformed overnight. It is a vast, interconnected network built over more than a century. Any significant modifications to that system will require time, investment, innovation, and thoughtful planning.

Policies that ignore physical realities, economic constraints, or human needs risk creating unintended consequences. These include higher energy costs, reduced reliability, and justified public backlash, as seen in Germany, the UK and California, each with expensive, largely self-imposed, electricity and gasoline.

An “all of the above” strategy that embraces innovation across the entire energy spectrum provides diverse, secure supply. That means expanding solar and wind where they make sense, advancing nuclear energy, improving grid infrastructure, investing in energy storage, and supporting emerging technologies such as geothermal and hydrogen, and further out fusion and perhaps satellite solar. It also means continuing to reduce the environmental impact of coal, oil and natural gas, which remain essential to meeting global energy demand.

Importantly, energy realism places people at the center. Environmental stewardship and climate goals matter. But so do affordability, reliability, and economic health, without which the environment will suffer.

Energy realism requires that policies succeed not only in theory but in practice. They must work for families balancing household budgets, to avoid regressive economic impacts. They must work for businesses competing in global markets, and for developing nations seeking pathways out of poverty.

Energy realism does not oppose climate action. It strengthens it because it strengthens economies. By grounding decisions in fact rather than aspiration, we can build durable solutions that endure political cycles and public scrutiny. We can reduce environmental impacts and emissions while expanding prosperity. We can advance environmental goals without sacrificing security.

The history of human civilization has been powered by energy innovation: wood to coal, coal to oil and natural gas, hydro to nuclear. Each transition has added to and expanded human capabilities and improved quality of life. The next chapter will be no different. But it must be written through innovation, investment, and pragmatism, not ideology. It’s tough to negotiate with physics.

Energy realism is not a retreat from ambition; it is a commitment to results. We need more energy, not less, with lower environmental impacts. We need realistic energy solutions that recognize the complexity of global systems and the diversity of human needs.

Energy realism is not about choosing one energy source over another. It is about choosing progress over polarization, facts over slogans, and practical solutions over wishful thinking.

If we are serious about building a prosperous, secure, and environmentally sustainable future, energy realism must lead.

Dr. Scott W. Tinker is a scientist, educator, filmmaker, PBS talk show host, NPR radio voice, keynote speaker, emeritus professor and global traveler, who has been engaged with energy and the environment for over four decades. He will be speaking about these topics at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship forum in London on June 26. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.4 10 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
76 Comments
Gregory Woods
June 22, 2026 2:10 pm

Just say ‘No’ to unreliables,,,

ResourceGuy
June 22, 2026 2:35 pm

Don’t forget “world peace” in the beauty pageant quality speech. It’s a sure fire winner every time in the meaningless arm waving contest.

Mr.
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 22, 2026 3:32 pm

when some of the Asian contestants wished for “world peace”, it sometimes sounded like “war please”.

June 22, 2026 2:37 pm

‘Energy realism’ will happen no matter what. Reality always wins in the end.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 23, 2026 5:02 am

And energy realism doesn’t include windmills and industrial solar.

Chris Hanley
June 22, 2026 2:48 pm

+ The question is how to increase affordable, reliable energy with the least environmental impact.
+ It also means continuing to reduce the environmental impact of coal, oil and natural gas, which remain essential to meeting global energy demand
+ We can reduce environmental impacts and emissions while expanding prosperity

The author assumes, citing no evidence, that the use of fossil fuels to generate energy necessarily, on balance, harms the global environment: “With CO2 Levels Rising, World’s Drylands Are Turning Green”, (of course Yale Environment 360 desperately finds a downside).

Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 22, 2026 3:13 pm

Nor does the author seem to realise the massive environmental impact and harm from the implementation of wind and solar.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 22, 2026 3:55 pm

In our current state of conflict with actively damaging technologies being foisted on the world and a large minority of humanity determined to gain world domination by any means necessary, the author is inviting us to consider the long view. Does he need to prove to you that fossil fuels need to be viewed as exhaustible resources? Are there guaranteed infinite amounts of each fossil fuel in planet earth in your estimation?
Is ever manner of using each fossil fuel performing optimally efficient outcomes?
We can look back 10 thousand years and it is perfectly reasonable and realistic and moral to look forward at least as far into the future about resources which may not be available without careful husbanding.
Use of them could be utterly harmless but no author has the duty to prove they are limitless.

MarkW
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 22, 2026 5:26 pm

Making ourselves poor on the off chance it will help our many times great grandchildren is a losing strategy.
There are hundreds of years of oil and gas, close to 1000 years of coal. At least.
The smart thing to do is use fossil fuels to enrich ourselves, then use that wealth to develop new technologies that will someday replace fossil fuels.
What will those technologies be like? I don’t know, What would someone in the 1800’s have answered if he were to be asked about the best way to travel to Mars?

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2026 8:28 pm

Yes that approach would be the rational things to do.

Alas . . .

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 22, 2026 9:12 pm

One day far into the future reliable gas and coal will run out.

“Renewables” are not the answer in a world where we need to produce reliable electricity.

Nuclear is clean and reliable. Hydro is clean and reliable. Gas is clean and coal can be, both are reliable.

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
June 23, 2026 9:12 am

Can’t completely dismiss the possibility that the replacement for fossil fuels hasn’t even been invented yet.
Of the ones that have been invented, hydro is, unfortunately, limited.
So it’s nuclear, unless they manage to get fusion working. Continued research into both is a good investment.

A. O. Gilmore
Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2026 10:59 am

From everything I’ve read fusion is bound to be a dead end, like green hydrogen. I foolishly had an argument with Brave AI which insists that green hydrogen is already in use, fossil fuels are not needed to manufacture solar and wind, and that total electrification of the grid will make fossil fuels unnecessary. It includes its sources, mostly green blob publications like cleantechnica.com

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Redge
June 23, 2026 9:13 am

Hydro, as a counterpoint, has a vast environmental impact.

June 22, 2026 2:57 pm

“Energy realism does not oppose climate action.”

There’s your problem. The activists oppose the use of natural hydrocarbons as fuel. The idea that the resulting emissions of CO2 exert a perceptible influence on ANY “climate” variable is unjustified physically and MUST be opposed. Disputed. Refuted. Corrected.

The modelers know this from having applied the fundamentals of compressible flow to the numerical representation of the general circulation. The results demonstrate that dynamic energy conversion massively overwhelms the minor static effect of the improved IR absorbing power in the atmosphere.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link

Don’t get me wrong. There are many good arguments against the push for the wind+solar+batteries+electrification approach to energy supply. Adverse cost, reliability, and environmental impacts are plain to see.

But let’s please stop going along with the core misconception that “climate action” in the form of reducing or avoiding emissions of CO2 has any value to humanity at all.

That is all for now.

Reply to  David Dibbell
June 22, 2026 3:16 pm

“But let’s please stop going along with the core misconception that “climate action” in the form of reducing or avoiding emissions of CO2 has any value to humanity at all.”

That needs repeating.. in bold.

MarkW
Reply to  bnice2000
June 22, 2026 5:37 pm

“But let’s please stop going along with the core misconception that “climate action” in the form of reducing or avoiding emissions of CO2 has any value to humanity at all.”

In bold, italicized and underlined.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2026 8:23 pm

It was italicized and underlined, then I tried to increase the font and somehow wiped it all out.

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  bnice2000
June 24, 2026 11:30 am

We need to add that adding CO2 improves the earth and all it’s inhabitants.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  David Dibbell
June 22, 2026 4:02 pm

What about eventually, and soon, only using fossil fuel for the tasks they are an essential component of the process. Simple example, you can get aluminium metal from rock with just electricity, to get iron and so steel you must use the carbon in the smelter.

George Thompson
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 22, 2026 4:23 pm

Electricity? From where? Unreliables? Don’t think so-ask the Brits and the Aussies about aluminum production..Oh, wait…

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 22, 2026 5:57 pm

In an aluminum smelter graphite electrodes are the indirect reducing agent for the bauxite in the cryolite. The graphite electrodes are oxidized to CO2.

MarkW
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 23, 2026 9:14 am

Why would we want to make our selves poorer. We’ve got hundreds of years worth of oil and gas left.

JonasM
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 24, 2026 11:18 am

Well, to clarify what I think he’s saying: I’ve often believed that if we can get rid of unnecessary regulations on nuclear, stop enviros from blocking every build, etc, thus bringing down the price, we may be better off in the long run by using nuclear for electricity as much as we can, leaving our limited (but large) supply of hydrocarbons for the things they do better than electricity from nuclear. Gasoline, fertilizers, etc.
If practical (and I stress ‘if practical’) this would extend our supply longer, giving more time to come up with the eventual replacement.
A counter argument is just continue using whatever is cheapest, technology will move on, and we’ll still be OK. I can’t argue against that.
But I think the suggestion is valid.

sidabma
June 22, 2026 3:07 pm

America needs to focus on what can give them 24/7/365 reliable electricity. We have solar & wind that when they are working do provide some electricity. We also have our large MW and even larger GW power plants who we know can provide all the power we need, as it is needed.
What America has to go for now is knowing that if a group of terrorists decide they really want to hurt America and kill, taking down a number of these large power plants or a bunch of our national grid towers, we will be left hurting, possibly for a long time.
We believe what America needs is Community Power Plants. Two or three hundred thousand smaller MW natural gas and coal power plants. These power plants can be running full time smoothing out the grid to it’s 60hz as needed, and ramping up also as needed.
These Community Power Plants also have to be located in these communities where an AI Data Center is planned. The Community Power Plant can provide the full time power to the AI Data Center so it does not have to rely on the Grid and the AI Data Groups can also pay for the fuel going into the Community Power Plant. In this way the local community will know that the power consumed, they are not having to pay for.
American Energy we believe is that very important “story tip” that everyone in America needs to be aware of. Nobody want to be in long term darkness.

Mr.
Reply to  sidabma
June 22, 2026 3:40 pm

Interesting concept.
But I’d sooner have an SMR for our Zip Code district rather than a coal or nat gas plant.
(I’ve got enough trucks noise coming up our hill street at all hours as it is 🙁 )

As for electricity to power the AI centres – build them in Nutbush – just beyond the city limits –

“build it and they will come . . . “

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mr.
June 22, 2026 8:41 pm

Nutbush – That just sounds dirty.

JonasM
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 24, 2026 11:21 am

Probably same reference as Bob Seger’s “Nutbush City Limits” on the “Live Bullet” album.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  sidabma
June 22, 2026 3:43 pm

If terrorists or some nation adversary wants to take down the power grid, in addition to hacking the control systems, they can interdict the fuel supplies by taking down down the natural gas pipelines and by disrupting coal delivery by the railroads.

The only technical approach which can make an islanded power grid reliable 24/7/365 in terms of a near complete independence from fuel supply disruptions is small modular nuclear. Which will be very, very expensive on a per-unit basis unless and until the SMR manufacturing industrial base gets enough firm orders to reduce its per-unit production costs.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  sidabma
June 22, 2026 4:46 pm

I think this author is much less parochial than you seem to be.
Eight billion of us do not all live in Amerika.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 23, 2026 9:17 am

Your reading comprehension needs a reality check.

Petey Bird
Reply to  sidabma
June 23, 2026 7:38 am

Design decisions should be made by competent engineers trained and experienced in electrical generation and grid operation.

MarkW
Reply to  Petey Bird
June 23, 2026 9:17 am

Need to include an economist or two.
It is said that one of the reasons why Germany lost WWII was that they over engineered everything they built.

Magnificent machines, but they took too long to develop and were hard and slow to build once they were developed.

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  sidabma
June 24, 2026 11:36 am

You need to read how community power plants transforms developing countries to developed in my novel “Switched”. It is available on major book sellers by googling my name “Jimmie Dollard”.

June 22, 2026 3:24 pm

The history of human civilization has been powered by energy innovation: wood to coal, coal to oil and natural gas, hydro to nuclear. 

UK grid would collapse if they did not burn wood. Now considered the most modern of all fuels.

Mr.
Reply to  RickWill
June 22, 2026 3:43 pm

who doesn’t love sitting in front of a cozy fireplace on a snowy night?

(you know, those screen-saver ones you bring up on the tv 🙂 )

George Thompson
Reply to  Mr.
June 22, 2026 4:20 pm

Now, that’s bad…

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  RickWill
June 22, 2026 4:05 pm

He! He! We all have our quibbles. My thought was – human muscle, horsepower, wood and wind, whale oil, coal, crude oil …

Reply to  RickWill
June 22, 2026 6:04 pm

Drax is suppling a UK power plant with wood pellets made in the USA.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
June 23, 2026 5:16 am

While sitting on top of a coal mine. Yet they burn imported American wood pellets instead of the coal.

Besides Germany shutting down all their nuclear reactors, switching DRAX from burning coal to burning American wood pellets is one of the dumbest moves Climate Alarmists have made.

Nick Stokes
June 22, 2026 3:52 pm

Wind and solar have achieved remarkable growth rates and generation cost reductions over the past decade”

Yes, they have.

George Thompson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2026 4:20 pm

Yeah, you bet.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2026 4:23 pm

But still after ~ 40 years at the caper, there isn’t one village, town, city, municipality, province, state, country or planet that runs 24 x 7 x 52 on solar & wind exclusively.

Sure, mania-indulging China has reduced its pricings over the years in response to a bonanza of heavily taxpayer-funded subsidized orders for solar panels & windmills bits from ideologically-captured western governments, but “other peoples’ money” has a limit.
(as craven leftist politicians in the UK, Canada, Australia and Germany have and are are finding out).

What’s your prediction for the “end times” for the 21st century version of the Tulip Mania (w & s), a.k.a. Charles Mackay’s “Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds”?

George Thompson
Reply to  Mr.
June 22, 2026 5:31 pm

My prediction would be a heller winter storm hitting the NE US coast, with NYC going dark and cold, pipes (and people) freezing with an unbelievable property damage reckoning…quite possibly in the billions. Almost happened once already; when I don’t quite remember, but fairly recently.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2026 5:14 pm

NO, They haven’t.

They provide very little of the world’s energy, and are parasitic to any electricity grid where they are implemented, at great expense.

Not to mention the massive environmental damage they have done…

…and economic damage they have done in places like the UK and Germany.

World-Energy-Wind-Solar-2024-Article
Harry Durham
Reply to  bnice2000
June 22, 2026 7:50 pm

It’s unfair to blame wind & solar for the cost increases and economic damages.

The idiots elected to lead their respective governments by a public influenced by the legacy misledia orchestrated that damage. Almost every technology developed throughout history can – and in most cases, did – result in damage when mismanaged or misapplied, In our times, wind & solar were the tool employed only after at least a voting plurality let themselves be duped into supporting the farce (or hoax, depending on your perspective).

Petey Bird
Reply to  Harry Durham
June 23, 2026 7:42 am

Good point. Wind and solar would not have created the disruption of generation without the stupid mandates and subsidies.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Harry Durham
June 23, 2026 8:53 am

Where have wind and solar not been mis-applied?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2026 5:41 pm

They are still more expensive and completely unreliable.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2026 11:21 pm

What is remarkable is that it is pure politics that have given this ‘remarkable growth’.

It is a mistake but try telling politicians who have the technical knowledge level of my dog.

Reply to  Iain Reid
June 23, 2026 5:20 am

Politics and subsidies.

Without taxpayer subsidies there would be no windmills or industrial Solar.

George Thompson
Reply to  Iain Reid
June 23, 2026 5:42 am

My dog is smarter than any greeniewhack or politician…and for that matter, most people.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  George Thompson
June 23, 2026 9:21 am

As is my pet goldfish.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2026 6:11 am

It’s all that free energy which suddenly becomes incredibly expensive when it gets to the customer and support for net-zero has plummeted.

In Australia the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation have all formally abandoned commitments to net zero by 2050. On current numbers there is simply no way that any new policy will get thru the senate if it could even get thru the lower house if Labor won.

Given that situation how many companies do you think will be willing to invest money?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Leon de Boer
June 23, 2026 12:40 pm

On current numbers there is simply no way that any new policy will get thru the senate”

Not true. Labor and the Greens have between them 40 seats out of 76. And at least two independents would support them as well.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2026 6:03 pm

Your numbers are the current parliament if you are an investor you are not worried about that you are worried about next election because you want certainty about what comes next. The support for Labor and net-zero has plummeted and so any investment in renewables is risky and that is the reason investment has dropped. If you are investing in the sector you have to pray labor gets back in power and keeps it’s commitments (given the GST backflip not a given).

Even your lefty groups have noticed it
https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/getmedia/f1cb75ef-dfb4-4978-af60-79da65651e19/clean-energy-australia-report-2026.pdf

Financial commitments for new large-scale wind and solar projects in Australia plummeted by 46% to A$4.4 billion, reaching a 10-year low.

It has drop for the last two years and the only money coming into the sector is government money.

JonasM
Reply to  Leon de Boer
June 24, 2026 11:25 am

Are you sure it’s not because they are almost done in their transition?

/sarc

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2026 9:19 am

Strike out the word “remarkable” and your post becomes somewhat agreeable.

Bob
June 22, 2026 4:20 pm

It is nice to see some movement to our way of thinking. I agree we need all of the above but not in the way Scott is thinking. Rather I want all of the above that work, wind and solar don’t work so they shouldn’t be in the mix, at least not connected to the grid. We also need to use clear language, the term reducing environmental impact is meaning less. It can mean different things to different people, it can mean anything therefore it is meaningless. For instance some believe that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere will cause catastrophic runaway global warming. They repeat this without a shred of proper evidence, yet the same people are okay with covering thousands of acres with wind mills and solar panels even cutting down forests to do so and don’t think this is causing environmental impact. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of wildlife that are adversely effected even killed by wind and solar. I’m with this guy in that we need more power not less but I part ways with him concerning wind and solar. Wind and solar can’t sustain a modern society everybody knows that.

R.K.
June 22, 2026 6:08 pm

The trouble with energy planning is that no one is looking to the medium to long term when oil and gas will be in decline and together with coal will be needed for their chemical base.
Solar and wind are not sensible ways to produce electricity with their intermittent nature and with the right weather conditions can be destroyed by a line of severe thunderstorms. Electricity was never designed to be sent long distances as it is radiation, electromagnetic radiation, and it falls off in density with the inverse square of the distance. Long transmission lines should only ever be used as emergency interconnectors.
Trying to produce AC power with thousands of different generators and synchronizing the grid is madness – the system was never set up to do this.
It will eventually dawn on those in government everywhere that nuclear power stations, both large and modular are the only form of long term power generation, not only for electrical power but water desalination and producing synthetic liquids.
The late Prof.George Olah and two other chemistry professors wrote a book some years ago called ” Beyond Oil and Gas – the Methanol Economy ” whereby using the excess heat from nuclear power and extracting CO2 from air, methanol and di-methyl either could be produced forming the basis for diesel and other fuels. As a 1994 Nobel Price winnner in Chemistry and the publisher of over 1300 scientific papers his ideas are worth considering seriously.
Scott Tinker is correct in stating that Physics over rides everything.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  R.K.
June 22, 2026 9:49 pm

A hundred years from now, nuclear will be king. In the year 2126, it is probable that nuclear power will be used to extract CO2 from seawater for use in manufacturing synthetic diesel, and yes, gasoline. But that’s a hundred years from now.

Reply to  R.K.
June 22, 2026 11:46 pm

Long transmission lines should only ever be used as emergency interconnectors.

That’s absolutly not how the grids in most countries / regions work nowadays. What you describe is radiation in air.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/physics/transmission-line-losses/

R.K.
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 23, 2026 4:46 am

I am not talking about radiation in air. What I said was that because of the inverse square law the energy density decreases with the square of the distance and that is why you have to transmit at very high voltage to send power long distance. To avoid this it would be better to have smaller transmission distances by having power plants close to the load in all major centres and also overcome the problem with reactive power which can’t be sent from a long way to where the load is. The fact that most grids are far too long is exactly the problem.

Petey Bird
Reply to  R.K.
June 23, 2026 8:00 am

There are many factors involved in placement of generating stations. Transmission losses are not the main factor and competent engineers design the system to work.
You don’t build a hydro dam in the middle of a flat desert with no river just to shorten the transmission line.

MarkW
Reply to  R.K.
June 23, 2026 9:38 am

For once LooserName is correct.
Inverse square is for radiation.
Transmission lines lose energy due to resistance. That’s a linear function. Twice as far looses twice as much energy, not 4 times as much energy.

R.K.
Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2026 5:22 pm

Hello Mark,
Electromagnetic radiation and light are all the same – radiation, and do involve the inverse square of distance law as does gravity. Electrical energy is very powerful between the electron and the proton but the further away it travels the more it decreases. I am not saying that transmission lines don’t cause resistance but to send power long distance continual upgrading of the voltage has to occur because of that law and it makes much more sense to power major centres locally.
Storms also cause damage to insulators and lines and reactive power also does not travel well over distance.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  R.K.
June 24, 2026 12:57 pm

Electricity is not a EM filed and 1/R^2 does not apply.
Much the same as light in a fiber optic link does not have a 1/R^2 effect.

For electricity, V=IxR, although for transmission lines, it is not purely resistive, so V=IxZ (Z = impedance).

R.K.
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 24, 2026 4:46 pm

Electrical energy is a field. It is the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field that travels as a wave through space. Coulomb’s Inverse square law describes exactly what I said.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  R.K.
June 25, 2026 1:14 pm

You are in error.

Electricity is charge (Coulomb) per second (Amperes, annotated in Ohm’s Law as I), not energy.
Energy is V x I x t (t=time) = Joules.

You are partly correct in that an EM field has an electric field component and a magnetic field component, but the field components are not electricity. Those field components are perpendicular to each other and orthogonal to the wave propagation path.

Specifically, Coulomb’s Inverse Square Law, also known as Coulomb’s Law, describes the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two charged particles. It states that the force is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

You are correct that the power density of an EM wave front is 1/R^2 due to the spherical nature of EM emissions (not exactly Coulomb’s Law). Maxwell’s Equations are a better source.

I am afraid you are arguing with an electrical engineer of over 50 years and experienced in RADAR, telemetry transmissions, and a whole bunch of related activities, including testing of electronics in electromagnetic environments (required for space and military applications).

As a point of interest, in a transmission line, the current does not diminish, but rather the voltage is reduced, hence the need for transformers.

R.K.
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 25, 2026 6:45 pm

Sparta,
I qualified my original comment about “electricity” as being radiation, because most people use that term and I am well aware that electrical charge, the movement of electrons is not energy. Why Electricity is Impossible to Understand Bill Beaty, a retired Professor of Electricial Engineering explains that issue in the link. Just because you state you are an electrical engineer does not mean what you say will always be correct. I note that back on the 9th of March you stated to someone that photons were not particles. Well, both Albert Einstein and Arthur Compton won the Nobel prize for showing that photons did have particle properties

Petey Bird
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 23, 2026 7:49 am

A little bit of knowledge is dangerous in the hands of those with poor understanding of a subject.

MarkW
Reply to  R.K.
June 23, 2026 9:36 am

Your “medium to long term” is 400+ years.

Iain Reid
June 22, 2026 11:15 pm

Quote:-
Wind and solar have achieved remarkable growth rates and generation cost reductions over the past decade, and they will play a role in the energy future. “

I expect to see in the not too distant future, a decline in their use and eventually they will disappear.

It is political will that brought the amount installed that we see today, based on ignorance of their fundamental unsuitability for the job they do.



Reply to  Iain Reid
June 22, 2026 11:25 pm

In your reality maybe…

Energy Security, Not Climate Goals, Is Now Driving the Clean Power Boom

https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/energy-security-not-climate-goals-210000253.html?guccounter=1

Spain’s renewables revolution is paying off: Electricity bills are lower despite energy crisis
https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/16/spains-renewables-revolution-is-paying-off-electricity-bills-are-lower-despite-energy-cris

Germany’s coal exit quietly progressing, likely completed by 2032 – researcher

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quietly-progressing-and-likely-be-completed-2032-researcher

Leon de Boer
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 23, 2026 12:05 am

ROFL did you even read your own links or just stop at headlines.

The one from Spain was the best spin and funniest 🙂

The electricity price in Spain rose sharply on 1st July 2026
https://www.democrata.es/en/economy/today-electricity-prices-rise-in-spain-these-are-the-reasons-and-how-much-your-bill-may-increase/

The linked article does a spin job arguing that the price rise would have been higher if not for renewables. When you read the headline it sort of reads as if electricity prices went down in Spain.

The really funny part is the reason for the cost increase was reduction in renewable generation and increase in electricity demand.

To argue the cost would have been less if they had more renewables is really really funny.

The German coal one was just a little optimistic 🙂

Not sure our troll meant to link comedy but the links will give you a chuckle.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Leon de Boer
June 23, 2026 6:41 am

I don’t think he ever reads the links but just looks at the headline. As an example a while ago he gave a link to a site in Australia claiming it proved electric lorries were the future. Follow the link and you find it was a reference to lorries delivering toilet rolls!