Between the climate scolds and the, well, sane and well-informed, there is an ongoing discussion over energy. Specifically, the climate scolds argue for "renewables," like wind and solar power, while the rest of us would largely prefer reliable, cheaper energy: Natural gas, nuclear, oil, and coal. There are a lot of reasons to favor traditional sources. One big one is energy density; as I've said and written for years, every increase in human standards of living has come with a corresponding increase in energy density of our primary fuel source: From wood to charcoal to coal to natural gas and oil to, now, nuclear power.
But there are a lot of factors to consider when naming pros and cons, and as it happens, the Heartland Institute has produced a great analysis of these energy sources on the basis of affordability, reliability, and cleanliness.
First, here's the criteria and methods:
Affordable, reliable, and clean. This is the foundational tripod of sound energy policy. Affordability is necessary to ensure consumers can afford the electricity we need for our day-to-day lives. Reliability is necessary to guarantee electricity is available whenever we need it. Environmental impact is important because we all want to be good stewards of our environment.
In this paper, we analyze and assign an objective numerical score for competing energy sources regarding each of the three factors. Adding the three scores for each energy source, we arrive at an overall full-spectrum score for affordable, reliable, and clean energy.
Bear in mind that the climate scolds aren't interested in affordable or reliable, or they wouldn't be screeching at us to surrender to having the landscape covered in windmills and solar panels. These are, nonetheless, good criteria. First, let's look at "Affordable."
The Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity, using the relatively wind-friendly and solar-friendly geography of Texas as a baseline, is as follows, in dollars per megawatt-hour:
- Natural Gas - $40
- Coal - $90
- Biomass - $117
- Nuclear - $122
- Wind - $291
- Solar - $413
When converted into a 1-10 scale (as we will see is done with the other criteria), this is what you get:
- Natural Gas - 1
- Coal - 2
- Hydro -2
- Nuclear - 4
- Biomass - 4
- Wind - 7
- Solar - 10
Remember, the scolds care not about cost or reliability.
The report notes that hydropower, a "green" source that actually works, wasn't in the report for total cost, but that the U.S. Energy Information Administration claims it is one of the least expensive sources of energy - but, of course, it can't be used everywhere.
Next, "Reliable." The report notes that the two "green" sources depend, for reliability, on something that isn't yet available, that being grid-scale batteries:
It is highly unlikely that ample battery storage will be technologically or economically possible to provide reliable baseload power during the 20-to-30-year lifespans of wind and solar power facilities being built today or to be built soon.
A scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the most reliable and 10 being the least reliable, yields the following reliability scores:
- Natural gas - 1
- Coal - 1
- Nuclear - 1
- Biomass - 2
- Hydro - 3
- Wind - 8
- Solar - 8
Next, on the "Clean" scale, taken from several different metrics, including emissions, land conservation, animal kills, and soil and water pollution.
Total environmental impact. Adding together the four environmental impact scores above yields the following total environmental impact scores, with lower total scores equating to less environmental harm:
- Natural gas - 4
- Nuclear - 5
- Hydro - 7
- Coal - 17
- Solar - 18
- Biomass - 20
- Wind - 24
And now, if you'll fasten your seat belts and raise your tray tables and seat backs to the upright and locked position, we can bring this thing in:
Adding together the above numbers yields the following affordable, reliable, and clean total scores, with lower scores being closer to perfect power sources and higher scores being least compatible with the affordable, reliable, and clean ideal:
- Natural gas - 3
- Nuclear - 6
- Hydro -7
- Coal - 8
- Biomass - 12
- Wind - 22
- Solar - 23
That's right: The climate scolds' preferred energy sources come in dead-and-that's-no-joke-last.
See Also: Big News! The Climate Catastrophe That Wasn't.
There's a lot to absorb in this report, and I urge you all to read the whole thing, especially if you anticipate meeting up with some climate scold relatives over the 4th of July. There are some things not addressed, as the Heartland Institute was looking at what is and not what could be; the advances in technology, increased development of uranium resources, and the stripping of some onerous regulations may move nuclear power a few notches up the scale.
But once again, we see the claims of the climate scolds stripped away. Renewable "green" energy sources fail on every metric. They are not reliable, they are not affordable, and when all factors are considered, they aren't even clean. Which once more brings us to the inevitable conclusion: It's not about climate, and it's not about the environment.
It's about control.
