Determined to save the world from climate change, California has all but shut down its oil and natural gas industry, even though the state currently get 50% of its total energy from oil and a further 34% from gas. The state's most recent decision was made by the California Division of Geological Energy Management, which denied new permits for hydraulic fracturing at oil and gas wells.
The attack on oil and gas has been relentless. In September 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and British Petroleum for allegedly causing climate change-related harm and misleading the public. A year earlier, in September 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation to ban new oil and gas wells within 3,000 feet of any occupied structure — a restriction so likely to kill the industry that more than 623,000 voters endorsed a referendum to repeal it last November.
The state government in Sacramento (capital of California) appears determined to be at the forefront of an international movement to achieve the goals announced last December at the COP28, in Dubai. As part of the quest to achieve net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050, countries have committed to tripling their nuclear energy production, assuming that renewables — mainly wind and solar — would replace what was left after the demise of oil, gas and coal.
A closer look at global energy and population trends suggests this is an illusion. The best source on global energy production is the World Energy Statistical Review, published annually. In the 2023 edition, total global energy inputs for the previous year amounted to 604 exajoules. Based on current population and energy use data, this equates to 288 gigajoules per capita in the United States and just 67 gigajoules per capita in the rest of the world. By 2050—the target date for reaching global “net zero”—the total world population will likely stabilize at around 10 billion.
If so, for every person in the world to have access to, say, 100 gigajoules, total global energy production will need to expand to a thousand exajoules, a 66% increase. Meanwhile, if all goes according to plan, coal, oil and gas — which, according to the Statistical Review, provided 82% of those 604 exajoules of energy in 2022 — will be completely phased out, providing no energy by 2050.
That's not possible. To begin with, the 82% figure is misleading because most official sources, including the Statistical Review and the United States Energy Information Administrationinflate reported energy inputs of “nonthermal energy” (i.e., all energy sources except “fuels”—coal, oil, gas, and biofuels), supposedly to show how much of the least efficient fossil fuel is already being replaced.
In terms of actual electricity these sources deliver to the grid: in 2022, 15.6 exajoules (EJ) came from hydropower, 9.6 EJ from nuclear, 7.6 EJ from wind, 4.8 EJ from solar, and 2. 8 EJ of biomass, in addition to another 4.3 EJ of biofuel (which already consumes an estimated 724 thousand km2 of land, while displacing less than 2% of global transportation fuel demand). In total, “non-thermal renewable energy” (including nuclear) delivered just 44.7 EJ of energy in 2022. We have 27 years to increase this to 1,000 EJ.
And 1,000 EJ represents the absolute minimum that global energy production should aspire to. For Americans to reduce their per capita energy consumption to 100 gigajoules from the current 288, a dramatic improvement in energy efficiency would be required. Can electric cars, heaters and other innovations increase efficiency that much? Because this is what advocates of net zero and the electrification of the economy need to accomplish. Otherwise, 1,000 EJ will not come close to meeting humanity's needs.
Where will this energy come from? Tripling nuclear power would increase the non-fossil fuel total to 64 EJ. Should we double hydroelectric capacity, along with biomass and biofuel? That would take us to 87 EJ, although few think it desirable to dam every remaining stretch of river and allocate almost 1.6 million square kilometers of rainforest to the cultivation of sugarcane ethanol and palm oil diesel. And that brings us to wind and solar energy: under this scenario, they would have to expand their production from 12.4 EJs to an unthinkable 913 EJs — a 74-fold increase.
It is not easy to summarize the challenges posed by the massive increase in solar and wind energy. The increase in mining; the land consumed; the expansion of transmission lines; the need for a staggering amount of electricity storage assets to balance these intermittent sources; the vulnerability of wind and solar farms to weather events, including blizzards, tornadoes and hail; and the mind-boggling task of doing it all again every 20 to 30 years as wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and storage batteries reach the end of their useful lifespan — all of which suggests that securing more than 90% of the energy global energy from wind and sun is an impossible mission.
California's climate warriors may succeed in their mission to phase out fossil fuels in the state, but it will come at a terrible cost to their fellow Americans, and it's an example the world cannot emulate. Geothermal energy can offset some of this. Perhaps nuclear capacity could more than triple. But the way forward for California and the world is to use coal, oil and gas in the cleanest and most sustainable way possible. “Alternative energy” is not a viable alternative.
Edward Ring co-founded the California Policy Center in 2013 and served as its first president. He is the author of two books, 'Fixing California' [Consertando a Califórnia] (2021) and 'The Abundance Choice' [A escolha abundante] (2022).
©City Journal. Published with permission. Original in English: California's Impossible War on Oil and Gas
#California39s #Futile #War #Oil #Gasoline