Why ‘All Of The Above’ Energy Policies Fail

[rangerrebew]

Why ‘All Of The Above’ Energy Policies Fail
True energy dominance does not come from a politically constructed mix of energy sources dictated by government planners.
Jason Isaac
Mar 25, 2025

In the debate over energy policy, the term “all of the above” has been heralded as a balanced, pragmatic strategy. But in reality, this approach is little more than a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework for energy — one that prioritizes political considerations over performance and efficiency. Just as DEI hiring initiatives emphasize inclusivity over merit-based selection, the “all of the above” energy policy forces taxpayers and ratepayers to subsidize inefficient energy sources under the guise of fairness and diversity in energy production.


This misguided philosophy has led to the proliferation of heavily subsidized and unreliable power generation, such as wind and solar, which fail to deliver power when it is needed most. These sources are not chosen based on their ability to provide cheap, reliable energy but rather on their alignment with politically driven mandates and green ideology. Despite the rhetoric of energy independence, the reality is that the expansion of these energy sources has increased our dependence on China for critical materials while simultaneously driving up electricity prices for American consumers. Ironically, while the U.S. is shackling its energy sector with expensive and inefficient mandates, China continues to dominate global energy markets by producing affordable power — largely fueled by coal.

The issue is not just limited to electricity generation. Biofuels, another beneficiary of the “all of the above” approach, serve as a prime example of government inefficiency. These fuels make gasoline and diesel more expensive, harm engine performance, and require massive amounts of water to produce. Rather than being an environmentally friendly alternative, biofuels epitomize waste — consuming resources and taxpayer dollars for minimal benefit.

https://jasonisaac.substack.com/p/why-all-of-the-above-energy-policies?utm_medium=web

[roamer_1]

That is not exactly true.

Solar can be a very useful technology - The problem is in how it is being applied. It is best applied without transmission - in other words in the hands of the end user.

If solar and batteries were added to every home, one would wind up with a very robust power generation that would be hard to knock out. I don't see it ever replacing the grid, or large power generating plants, but it would be invaluable for load-balancing (grid-connected), and would lend much in wattage that is not available now on power lines that are too small to handle much more.

I am a big, big fan of distributed resources. the dilemma arises in how it is used, and who's ox gets gored.

[Free Vulcan]

That is not exactly true.

Solar can be a very useful technology - The problem is in how it is being applied. It is best applied without transmission - in other words in the hands of the end user.

If solar and batteries were added to every home, one would wind up with a very robust power generation that would be hard to knock out. I don't see it ever replacing the grid, or large power generating plants, but it would be invaluable for load-balancing (grid-connected), and would lend much in wattage that is not available now on power lines that are too small to handle much more.

I am a big, big fan of distributed resources. the dilemma arises in how it is used, and who's ox gets gored.

I am too, and we had that till FDR nationalized the system. Most in the rural and small towns just had their own setup, and generated power in all sorts of ways. Of course we know why things were nationalized.

[roamer_1]

I am too, and we had that till FDR nationalized the system. Most in the rural and small towns just had their own setup, and generated power in all sorts of ways. Of course we know why things were nationalized.

Yes... sorta. It kinda takes both. Without industrial power, there is no industry. And reliable grid power is taken for granted - Without the grid is a damn hard way by comparison, as you and I both know.

But by the same token, When that reliability is gone, it sure is nice to have a shed full of batteries, ain't it? 

[DefiantMassRINO]

I would not include biofuels in an 'All of the above' energy policy.

Biofuels are an net-negative value proposition for the following reasons:

1.) Contibutes to food inflation by diverting crops from food and feed stock.
2.) Net-negative value proposition because production dollar cost is more than natural market price.
3.) Net-negative environment proposition because of the destruction of forest to build plantations.

What biofuels are attempting to replicate, at uneconomical financial and environmental costs, is the natural and tectonic processes that convert organic materials into petroleum, natural gas, coal, and kerogen - aka 'fossil fuels'.

Nature has already produced 'biofuels' at zero cost to man.  Man still needs to pay for exploration, development, transportation, storage, and refinement, but man does not have to pay for the process to convert organic material into 'fossil fuels'.

'Fossil fuels' are more more economical and less envrionmentally destructive than man-made 'biofuels'.

Solar and Wind are immature and incomplete alternate energy technologies.  They require the additional development of storage and a more dynamic eletric grid that has more near-real-time, on-demand generation capability.  When the sun sets, and solar output decreases, a stable grid would require natural gas turbine generators to start automatically or power to be drawn from storage.

Greater efficiency and reduced pollution output of combustion can be achieve with oxygen-assisted combustion or other technologies.  Oxygen-assisted combustion has the potential to improve combustion % rates, and produce less pollution by buring 'fossil' fuels at higher temperatures.

[roamer_1]

I would not include biofuels in an 'All of the above' energy policy.

Biofuels are an net-negative value proposition for the following reasons:
[...]
Nature has already produced 'biofuels' at zero cost to man.  Man still needs to pay for exploration, development, transportation, storage, and refinement, but man does not have to pay for the process to convert organic material into 'fossil fuels'.

Again, that depends on how it is used... Used cooking oil collection and conversion might be a legitimate use. Just as an example of what I mean... Distributed resources are never a bad thing.

'Fossil fuels' are more more economical and less envrionmentally destructive than man-made 'biofuels'.

TRUE. And it will continue to be the main thing for at least another century. Admitted. But that still does not eliminate the use of a distributed model.

For instance, in mega cities, it may well be better to go electric. Considering the pollution level, and relatively short commutes, and an always available charging method, well maybe electric cars make sense like that.

In rural areas where grid electricity is not reliable, I already know that solar makes sense. Many places here it is so. My friend just put in a solar system to run his new house. It cost him 20% less than it would have to hook up to grid, and that's throwing in a fail-over diesel generator...

I am saying one shoe does not fit everyone, and distributed systems are often better, or even necessary.

Solar and Wind are immature and incomplete alternate energy technologies.  They require the additional development of storage and a more dynamic eletric grid that has more near-real-time, on-demand generation capability.  When the sun sets, and solar output decreases, a stable grid would require natural gas turbine generators to start automatically or power to be drawn from storage.

ONLY TRUE at the industrial level. Solar/batt or solar/batt/grid at home can be very reliable, especially in the north, and especially when using heat pump technology (because it costs little in power).

Batteries have come a long, long way, and are very capable of running a modest home. Now, that may be generator or grid power sometimes, when cloudy days prevent or limit solar gathering, so don't expect solar to ever be reliable.

But it doesn't have to be reliable at the end user. Its best use is augmentation.

Still, it is just barely able to compete with the grid, and often can't compete where the grid is strongest.

But in very rural areas and oddly subdivisions, where demand tied prices fluctuate through the day, solar becomes viable and even attractive..

I am not against your position exactly. Just pointing out that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Free Vulcan]

Yes... sorta. It kinda takes both. Without industrial power, there is no industry. And reliable grid power is taken for granted - Without the grid is a damn hard way by comparison, as you and I both know.

But by the same token, When that reliability is gone, it sure is nice to have a shed full of batteries, ain't it? 

And I wish more people had that attitude. Here there used to be a bottom up system of everything from individuals to small towns and co-ops doing their own power generation, and the bigger cities supplied by the bigger players.

We still do have some of that with rural co-ops and such even in towns with industry, but the convenience and reliability of the bigger power generators has eroded that to near nothing.

Some of which I get, but the price for that centralization is control by and reliance on people with hostile agendas, although it's starting to reverse a bit. Just wish people would wake up and realize they are being held by their throats.

[roamer_1]

And I wish more people had that attitude. Here there used to be a bottom up system of everything from individuals to small towns and co-ops doing their own power generation, and the bigger cities supplied by the bigger players.

We still do have some of that with rural co-ops and such even in towns with industry, but the convenience and reliability of the bigger power generators has eroded that to near nothing.

Some of which I get, but the price for that centralization is control by and reliance on people with hostile agendas, although it's starting to reverse a bit. Just wish people would wake up and realize they are being held by their throats.

That is exactly right... It's so much easier now too... That place I had up in the holler... That was gonna be a thing... 20' Waterfall on a strong stream... micro-hydro was gonna be the main, with a big solar backup and a failover generator that I doubt I was ever going to use. I could run decent 220 and a whole shop off that rig.

But that micro-hydro is the thing for me.... I would take that over solar any day... other than the freezing up, I mean, which I honestly don't know about.

That was a fun project... I wish I could get it done. But man plans, God laughs. 

[Smokin Joe]

That is not exactly true.

Solar can be a very useful technology - The problem is in how it is being applied. It is best applied without transmission - in other words in the hands of the end user.

If solar and batteries were added to every home, one would wind up with a very robust power generation that would be hard to knock out. I don't see it ever replacing the grid, or large power generating plants, but it would be invaluable for load-balancing (grid-connected), and would lend much in wattage that is not available now on power lines that are too small to handle much more.

I am a big, big fan of distributed resources. the dilemma arises in how it is used, and who's ox gets gored.

One kick-ass hailstorm...

But I get it. Where I find solar most useful is in operating trickle chargers to maintain batteries in vehicles I do not use often. Small panel on the dash, connect to the battery....no worries.

[roamer_1]

One kick-ass hailstorm...

That's something I was trying to address with my rig - I spent a whole lot of time building a central post with a retractable  flower petal design... All the 'petals' folded up into a steel plate 'leaf'... It was wind or rain activated (raspberry pi, internet connected), and I was programing it to follow the sun and obtain the best angle of declination...

But I was overly complicated (which is how I roll). If I were to do it again I would put the whole array on 2 south-facing posts on a frame with the ability to rotate 360 degrees on an horizontal axis... The underside would be bulletproof. Any time rain or snow, just rotate the panels under. All that sun tracking and such wasn't worth the squeeze... just add a couple more panels and quit worrying about it... But the declination could still happen pretty easy.

That was a fun project. I wish I could go at it again.

But I get it. Where I find solar most useful is in operating trickle chargers to maintain batteries in vehicles I do not use often. Small panel on the dash, connect to the battery....no worries.

Yeah... It's made quite a mark in electric fence chargers and automatic gates too...