For fear of wading into a debate that has no end....
A few points to consider:
- There is only ONE atmosphere. Closing a plant in Europe to move it to China is almost always a net increase in emissions and pollution into the atmosphere.
- Consumers want the highest quality at the lowest price - and with rare exception they don't care about the manufacturing/supply chain that brought the product to their door.
- The profit motive drives the search for low cost, which in the last 40 years has resulted in major labor arbitrage from high wage to low wage countries (see points 1 and 2)
- No one makes major capital investments to be nice. Funds that invest in windmill construction, for example, expect a better than average return on capital employed, and tax rebates/deferments and price support incentives play a large part in those returns today.
- On a MACRO scale, energy has never been more reliable, more available, or more affordable than it is today. This leads to better outcomes for societies in every corner of the world - more clean water, more refrigeration, more mobility, and ultimately higher life expectancy (is there a better measure than this?).
- There are more people in the developing world than the developed world and they will expect to have the same advantages of progress as those who made the journey to prosperity before them. And this means greater energy consumption on a global scale.
- Rural communities are beginning to revolt against the imposition of "city centric" green solutions. Here in France, farming communities are beginning to take legal action to halt windmill construction. That windmills create noise pollution, blight the landscape, and kill an enormous quantity of birds are common talking points. There is no engineering reason that you couldn't build windmills in London or Paris but it doesn't seem that Sadiq Khan or Anne Hidalgo are that keen to give it a go while they love waging war on automobiles.
- It is hard to defeat physics. A heavier vehicle always takes more energy to move than a lighter one, and EV's are heavier than ICE vehicles on average.
- Having a lower standard of living means having a dirtier planet (go to Africa for a few weeks if you don't think this is true).
Now if we want blue skies and blue oceans and
enough energy to underpin an economy that can afford to make the necessary changes we need to be pragmatic - which means using the best sources for each use case. Ideally, 60-80% of electricity would be generated by nuclear (low emissions, high reliability, high availability, reasonable cost per kwh) with the balance a mix of primarily renewable and a bit of combined cycle natural gas to top up the system when needed. For mobility and transport, while imperfect in many ways, the energy density of hydrocarbon liquids is hard to beat. Converting the marine and trucking fleets to cleaner fuels (e.g. LNG) will have a much greater impact than increased EV usage. And of course, less waste of everything (Insulate Britain anyone
)
I have not addressed short term energy prices as that is a completely different kettle of fish driven by underinvestment, poor policy choices, and a variety of other issues that would require a separate post.
Bill
