In this topsy-turvy world, everything is in flux. Sense becomes nonsense, and vice versa. Facts become denialist talking points, and the hysterical fever dreams of alarmists becomes fact. Eventually, somebody had to realise that a bicycle is, indeed, a viable transportation method for a gurnard.

Thus we reach the stage in the slow collapse of civilisation when we realise, after all, that renewable generators produce more useful energy than fossil fuels.

Struggling to come up with advantages for renewables, I find two, which are in effect two sides of the same coin: they use no fuel, and emit no carbon dioxide when in use. That’s it.

Their disadvantages, as we know, are legion. They are intermittent and unpredictable. They use a lot of materials. They take up large amounts of space. They have to be tied into the grid on long cables from the middle of nowhere. They don’t contribute to stabilising grid frequency, but can only follow. Adding them to a grid requires the addition of frequency stabilisers plus dispatchable backup. They are an ecological menace.

To grok the usefulness or otherwise of renewables, imagine a flow of energy. The renewables derive their “fuel” through natural supplies of power that vary on a variety of timescales. When those natural sources provide power, renewables generate electricity: but it must be used at once. If there is nothing for the electricity to be used for, it is useless. If the natural power source is not flowing, then the renewables are useless.

Compare this to a fossil-fuelled generator where the incoming power can be controlled by storage of the energy source (a heap of coal, for example). The input is always available, and the output can be varied according to need.

To make an analogy with domestic water: in one scenario, we turn the tap on when we want water, and water flows out. In the other, we leave the tap on all the time, and the water flows, or does not flow. To make an analogy with international shipping: a sailing ship may make progress when the wind blows, but goes nowhere in a calm. If it is windy, but the ship does not wish to move, the wind is useless. A diesel transport, however, forges ahead indomitably.

But in our topsy turvy world, such logic avails us naught.

How does Ars Technica feel able to argue that up is down? Well, their opening paragraph is a rounded summary of the obvious issues:

It doesn’t take a lot of energy to dig up coal or pump oil from the ground. By contrast, most renewable sources of energy involve obtaining and refining resources, sophisticated manufacturing, and installation. So, at first glance, when it comes to the energy used to get more energy—the energy return on investment—fossil fuels seem like a clear winner. That has led some to argue that transitioning to renewables will create an overall drop in net energy production, which nobody is interested in seeing.

With you so far, Ars.

A new study by researchers at the UK’s University of Leeds, however, suggests that this isn’t a concern at all—in most countries, renewables already produce more net energy than the fossil fuels they’re displacing. The key to understanding why is that it’s much easier to do useful things with electricity than it is with a hunk of coal or a glob of crude oil.

Here we begin to sense that our friends at Leeds set out to prove that renewables are better, come what may. For an obvious retort to this sentence is that fossil fuels can be burnt to produce electricity at the time we require it. Its delivery of electricity therefore trumps that of renewables – it has more value per watt supplied. And there is another obvious problem: fossil fuels are very good at generating heat. And Ars Technica’s mention of crude oil is rather unfortunate for their case, since we all know how many uses crude oil is put to.

It’s now long enough since W. Stanley Jevons said…

The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to he exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.

The Coal Question

… that we should all be aware of it by now.

On what basis is the claim of the victory of renewables made? On Leeds’ invention of a new version of EROI – not just how much energy you get out of the energy you invest, but how much “useful-stage” energy you get. So much energy is wasted in transporting fuels, etc (and one presumes the energy wasted as heat in internal combustion engines is a major contributor to this metric). So to take the vehicle propulsion example: electricity is more efficient at driving the wheels than petrol, so the “useful-stage” EROI of oil has to be reduced accordingly. Meanwhile, for home heating, gas is great, but the efficiency of heat pumps trumps that.

The researchers gathered a lot of final EROIs from the literature, and they’re quite striking. The absolute worst for wind power is over 10, and the highest values are in the area of 25. So, wind power is already ahead of fossil fuels when it comes to giving us more useful energy back than is needed to produce, install, and maintain wind turbines.

The literature means nothing when you have data. The data shows manufacturing relocating away from places where renewables penetration is highest (still far below 50% of electricity) to where it is lowest.

Of course, the EROI of 25 does not include the problems with renewables. But don’t worry.

Even when intermittency, curtailment, and storage are considered, wind comes out well ahead of fossil alternatives.

This story smells of the farmyard. Will the “useful-stage energy” from any energy system’s renewables ever power the prospecting, mining, refining, and manufacturing of 25 times their number? Will this inevitably lead to an exponential increase in available energy, the collapse of energy costs, and to climate denialists slinking off to the pub, where they can finally afford to buy a pint of beer again, since their energy bills are so cheap?

There is no mention of nuclear in Leeds’ work. I do wonder at what the “useful-stage” energy of a kilogram of uranium is.

The paper, which I have only skimmed. I fear it would take a month to unravel its mysteries by the time its supplementary information and source data is considered.

Apologies for “recycling” the pun in the title, which I used in my book Ares Upwards. Modesty forbids me from linking to it here, but it has probably been enjoyed by the several people who have read it.

From The DAILY CALLER

Nick Pope
Contributor

Numerous Democrats who have helped the Biden administration restrict fossil fuel development and production are now concerned about high gas prices as the 2024 elections loom.

A group of 23 Senate Democrats — including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Massachusetts Sen. Liz Warren and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey — signed a Thursday letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking him to have the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate major energy companies for allegedly colluding to raise gas prices for Americans and fatten their bottom lines. The suggestion that oil companies are illegally collaborating to rip off American consumers is not new to Democrats, who have revived the narrative as prices at the pump tick up ahead of the 2024 elections.

“The federal government must use every tool to prevent and prosecute collusion and price fixing that may have increased gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel costs in a way that has materially harmed virtually every American household and business,” the letter states. “We therefore urge the Department of Justice to investigate the oil industry, to hold accountable any liable actors, and to end any illegal activities.” (RELATED: Democrats Up Pressure On Big Oil To Answer For Alleged Profiteering As Americans Blame Biden For Gas Prices)

Big Oil – DOJ Letter by Nick Pope

The letter references ExxonMobil’s recent acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources and amplifies the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) allegation that Chris Sheffield, the founder and ex-CEO of Pioneer, tried to organize collusion between American and OPEC energy producers to artificially inflate profits. Sheffield, however, has strongly contested this allegation, saying that the “FTC is wrong to imply that [he] ever engaged in, promoted or even suggested any form of anti-competitive behavior” in a statement.

Beyond Warren, Schumer and Casey, other signatories include Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Each Senator who signed the letter also voted for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s flagship climate bill, and have also supported many other facets of the Biden administration’s efforts to move the U.S. away from fossil fuels.

Warren’s voting record has earned her a 95% lifetime approval score from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), one of the country’s largest influential environmental groups that openly rejects fossil fuels, and a 100% score for 2023. Last year, Warren voted against an attempt to rein in the government’s push to regulate a wide array of consumer appliances, a bill promoting the Mountain Valley Pipeline and to protect a Labor Department rule pushing asset managers to incorporate climate risks in their investment decisions.

Casey voted in favor of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, but joined Warren on the other two votes. He also voted against a 2022 effort to increase the number of government-issued oil lease sales and opposed another 2022 move that would have prevented federal permitting or regulatory actions from hindering fossil fuel development.

Schumer also voted to support the Mountain Valley Pipeline in 2023, but he has voted in line with what LCV advised in every other instance since Biden took office in 2021, with one exception. He has opposed four legislatives proposals that would have made it easier or less expensive to produce oil and gas throughout Biden’s first term.

Murphy voted against the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and also opposed legislation that would have increased offshore and onshore oil and gas development.

Whitehouse voted against the Mountain Valley Pipeline, as well as numerous legislative efforts to enhance oil and gas leasing activity. Markey, meanwhile, has consistently voted against legislation intended to make it easier to produce oil and gas for his entire career.

Brown voted to support the Mountain Valley Pipeline, but he has opposed four initiatives meant to boost oil drilling through Biden’s first term. Sanders, one of the most left-wing lawmakers in Washington, also voted against the four same legislative efforts and has consistently opposed bills designed to make drilling easier throughout his career.

Gas prices are increasing as the pivotal 2024 elections approach on the calendar. In January, the national average per-gallon price of all formulations of gasoline was approximately $3.08, a figure that has increased to $3.60 as of May, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The administration is moving to release about one million barrels of gasoline from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve to try to bring down prices this summer. The administration also released 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) ahead of the 2022 midterms, selling several million barrels to Chinese companies and leaving the SPR at its lowest levels in decades.

Numerous economists and analysts, and even the CEO of Chevron, have credited the price increases in part to the Biden administration’s $1 trillion-plus climate agenda.

The administration has made many decisions that restrict domestic oil and gas production, pushed aggressive environmental regulations impacting energy producers and established massive subsidy programs to favor sources of green energy like wind and solar. These choices have the combined effect of driving up prices that consumers pay at the pump and elsewhere over time, according to the American Energy Alliance, a right-leaning energy advocacy group.

In January 2020, just before the onset of the pandemic, Americans paid an average of $2.55 per gallon for all types of gas, according to the EIA. Those figures have grown considerably since November 2020, the month that President Joe Biden won the presidential election; the average price sat at $3.61 per gallon in April 2024 after peaking at $4.92 in June 2022.

Democrats pushed similar messaging about major energy companies and collusion in 2022, when gas prices were causing political headaches for Biden and fellow Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. However, analysts from the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve argued at the time that corporate collusion was not one of the factors driving up retail gasoline costs, pointing out that energy producers actually have almost zero control over the prices set by gas station operators.

The offices of Schumer, Warren, Casey, Brown, Murphy, Durbin, Whitehouse and Sanders did not respond to requests for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.