Among the many challenges facing the energy transition, one is particularly ominous: a lot of stuff will need to be produced, fabricated, and constructed to replace the hydrocarbon-based energy network that runs the world today. We’re talking wind turbines, solar arrays, energy storage batteries, electric vehicles, and all of the other infrastructure and components that will be needed to make the energy transition happen. Not only will all this stuff require a lot of concrete and steel, it also will demand huge quantities of specialty metals and minerals such as lithium, copper, chromium, neodymium, etc. It’s a fact that a decarbonized energy network is much more material intensive — that is, it takes a lot more total investment in minerals, metals, and construction materials to produce the same energy as comes from hydrocarbons. Further complicating things, the increased material needs will be front-end loaded. In today’s RBN blog, we discuss the materials-related challenges facing the energy transition.
One debate about the energy transition is settled. It’s happening. Governments everywhere are directing enormous amounts of money at green programs. Companies across the economic spectrum are making the shift to green, from Ford with its F-150 Lightning to Coca-Cola and Microsoft committing to net-zero emissions targets at some future date. And, it bears noting, in the immediate days following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission president announced: “We are doubling down on renewables. This will increase Europe’s strategic independence on energy.” (A strategy also echoed by the Biden administration.)
What’s not settled yet is how long it’s going to take, how disruptive it is going to be, and above all, how much it is going to cost. Over the past year, the natural gas crisis in Europe and other energy market developments have shown that the transition is unlikely to be smooth or trouble-free. Furthermore, there is more than a pretty good chance that it’s going to take far longer than many hope, and cost far more than most pundits and policy makers would have us believe.
Join Backstage Pass to Read Full Article
About the song
“Tell It Like It Is” was written by George Davis and Lee Diamond. It appears as the first song on side one of Aaron Neville's second studio album of the same name. Released as a single in November 1966, the song went to #1 on the Billboard Rhythm & Blues chart and #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart. It has been certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America. The song has been covered by many artists, including Heart, Billy Joe Royal, and John Wesley Ryles, who all had charting singles of the song. Personnel on the record were: Aaron Neville (lead vocals), George Davis (baritone sax), Alvin “Red” Tyler (tenor sax), Emory Humphrey-Thompson (trumpet), Deacon John (guitar), Willie Tee (piano), and June Gardner (drums).
The album Tell It Like It Is was recorded at Cosimo Recording Studio in New Orleans in 1966. Produced and arranged by George Davis, it was released in January 1967.
Aaron Neville is an American R&B and soul singer, musician, and actor. Besides being a prominent solo artist, he is a member along with his brothers Art, Charles, and Cyril, of The Neville Brothers. He has released 18 studio albums, seven compilation albums, and 22 singles. Neville has appeared in five motion pictures. In May 2021 he announced his retirement from touring, but said he still plans to record and perform occasionally for special events and festivals.
Comments
The reality that fossil fuels will dominate the global energy sector for many decades renders meaningless the sacrifices people in the West are being asked to make — high energy prices and shortages — to purportedly save the planet from the fabricated crisis of global warming.
https://cornwallalliance.org/2022/02/green-media-misrepresents-worlds-energy-reality/
https://cornwallalliance.org/2022/02/calculating-the-full-costs-of-electrifying-everything-using-only-wind-solar-and-batteries/
In reply to Fabricated climate crisis by Dwight Lynch
The links to the cornwll alliance do not add to the discussion, are misleading, and misstate opinion as fact.
Just as an example, a Marcellus well has a total depth of about 13,000ft. Drill string weighs more than 22 lb/ft. So each Marcellus well requires about 130 mt of steel. That's about how much steel is required for one of the large wind turbine towers. And only one of those assets remains productive for 30 years, and at end of life can be melted down and recycled.
In reply to Including material for pipelines, drill pipe, etc. would help by Warren Wilczewski
First, you cite a "Drill string" that weighs more than 22 lb/ft, and that each Marcellus well requires about 130 mt of steel. The fact is that a Drill string is pulled out of the well each time a drill bit is changed, and one the well is drilled, it is moved off with the drilling rig and associated equipment. What you should say is that the "Casing" is what remains in the well. For the sake of argument, let's grant your claim of 130 tons of steel, equivalent to the amount required by one wind turbine. What you neglect to say is that wind farms require double the amount of infrastructure that a gas fired generation plant requires. Since the wind doesn't blow all the time, there needs to be a backup source of energy. So in fact, a wind farm requires much more steel than a well in the Marcellus. Finally, there are thousands and thousands of wells that have been producing for more than 30 years. You also fail to mention that much, perhaps even most of the infrastrucutre for oil and gas production has already been built, whereas the wind infrastructure has not.
Excellent essay. And if there is anything the greenies hate more than an oil or gas well, it is a mine. Case in point, the US Department of Interior of the Biden* Administration just canceled the permit for a new 211 mile road to the nascent Ambler Mining District in Alaska.
Excellent article.
While so far the conversation has been focussed on energy transition from fossil fuel to renewables, almost no one talks about reducing energy consumption in absolute terms. The world has not even gone back to pre-COVID levels of economic activity and energy consumption has already ratcheted up to pre-COVID levels as per the industry players and vatious agencies like IEA, etc. Thus, something is definitely wrong regarding our consumption habits and US is at the top of this list on a per capita basis.
Similarly, while the transition may happen over decades, isn't it important to switch away from the worst of the fossil fuels (i.e. Coal) at the earliest possible date. Here too, despite abundance of natural gas, US continues to be the 3rd largest coal consumer. What is stopping the power industry from moving away from coal into natural gas ? Off course, we all know the Trump administration wasted 4 precious years. However, now the Biden administration should try to focus and correct the situation.