Moore: 100% Green Energy Could Destroy the Planet

[rebewranger]

Moore: 100% Green Energy Could Destroy the Planet
 
Stephen Moore
June 7, 2022
 
The untold story about “green energy” is that it can’t possibly be scaled up to provide anywhere near the energy to replace fossil fuels. (Unless we are headed back to the stone ages, which is what some of the “de-growth” advocates favor).

Right now, the United States gets about 70% of its energy from fossil fuels. To go to zero over the next 20 years would be economically catastrophic and cost tens of millions of jobs. With gas prices at nearly double their price back from when Donald Trump left office and inflation up from 1.5% to 8% in just 15 months, we are already experiencing the economic damage from the green energy crusaders.

But we also have to ask whether green energy is even good for the environment. Some environmentalists are pointing to a little-noticed study by the World Bank showing that moving toward 100% solar, wind and electric battery energy would be just as destructive to the planet as fossil fuels. This was precisely the conclusion of a story in Foreign Policy magazine, hardly a right-wing publication.

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2022/06/moore-100-green-energy-could-destroy-the-planet/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Environment+%26+Climate+News%3A+100++Green+Energy+Could+Destroy+the+Planet&utm_campaign=ECN+%2806-07-22%29

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We could just wind up being one huge mining pit, except the land covered by solar panels.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And now even the rabid left is figuring this out as they are pursuing strip mining the earth rather than punching a hole in the ground for oil and gas.  And they try to justify it by claiming it has fantastic economics. Stupid.

Climate change: Investment in mining 'needs to nearly double' to achieve net zero, BofA says

Current levels of metals needed to decarbonize economies won't be sufficient to reach climate targets, a recent Bank of America (BAC) note cautioned, and investment in mining needs to double by 2050 in order to satisfy the growing demand for low carbon technologies.

"Raw material markets are tight already and will likely get tighter going forward," the analysts wrote. "Based on the current resource endowment and market balances, we don't expect the 1.5°C global warming target to be achieved by 2050: 1.7-1.8°C looks likely. One solution to resolving shortages and constraints, as ever, lies in investment."


The cost of shifting from fossil fuels to low carbon alternatives won't be cheap, the note stated, citing UN estimates that adoption will cost developing countries alone $140-$300 billion per year by 2030.

"To prevent metal shortages and achieve net zero, mining [capital expenditure] needs to nearly double," the analysts stated.

Due to the urgent nature of addressing the climate crisis, returns could be sizable. Using somewhat simplified calculations, the analysts suggested "the return on mining investment could be an impressive +94- 317%."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bofa-mining-investment-double-2050-net-zero-131951547.html