Under the Biden administration, the U.S. is now aiming to bring emissions down to net-zero by 2050, meaning the country would eliminate as much greenhouse gas as it emits.
To accomplish this, democrats now want to spend trillions of dollars to accelerate the energy transition. I've read that over half of the proposed spending in the "infrastructure" bill is dedicated to reducing CO2 with a goal of eliminating fossil fuels. Part of Biden's plan is an Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard, which would force states and utilities to phase out fossil fuels. The plan is to use far more "clean energy" and far less hydrocarbons - the oil, natural gas and coal that today supply 84 percent of global energy needs.
Those of you who have read my articles over the years know that I am a strong proponent of an "all-of-the-above" energy policy. I don't discriminate against any form of energy, as cheap, efficient energy has helped lift the progress of humanity, and our planet is only going to require more energy as time goes on.
I'd love for a magical energy revolution to take place, but there are tradeoffs for everything, and the wind and solar industries are learning it quickly. One pain point advocates have never fully explained is the land use and footprint required to ramp up solar and wind power. It seems as though the public has taken for granted what a small footprint oil and gas require.
Wind and solar energy are quite popular in theory. But where will those windfarms and solar panel farms be built? There is always a "not in my backyard" backlash.
Since 2015, about 300 government entities have rejected or restricted wind projects. Solar power companies are now dealing with land use issues. One firm is fighting environmentalists over a planned solar plant in the Nevada desert that would be the world's largest solar plant in the U.S. - 14 square miles - with over a million solar panels 10-20 feet tall. The opposition wants to keep the land unspoiled, and they are concerned the land will no longer be as beautiful.
Of course, a government bent upon a particular result can often force the issue if there are resources to accommodate the solution. We do have plenty of land in this country, and there could be a pervasive patchwork of solar panels and windfarms in the future to accommodate our growing energy needs and transition from oil and gas. However, there is a facet of land use as it relates to green energy the U.S. does not possess that will certainly become a bottleneck to energy transition: the amount of minerals required.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), the world's leading energy information source used by governments, released a 287-page report last quarter, "The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions." This report was not widely publicized, I believe, because it lays bare a fairly well-hidden environmental cost of going green. To me, it seems to say that "going green" by solar/wind and batteries is completely unfeasible, absent developing currently nonexistent technology.
The IEA makes clear what green energy advocates fail to mention: Building solar plants, wind farms and electric vehicles requires far more critical minerals than conventional energy and equipment powered by conventional fuels. "A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant," the report says.
Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of energy transition materials (ETMs) that must be mined and processed. IEA reports that in the past 10 years, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation has risen 50 percent. And that is merely to get wind and solar to supply 10 percent of the world's electricity. If we want to transition all-in to clean energy to meet net-zero goals, demand for ETMs is about to go through the roof.
The IEA finds that with a global energy transition, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth minerals would explode, rising by 4,200 percent, 2,500 percent, 1,900 percent and 700 percent respectively in the next 20 years. You will recall that green energy advocates were repulsed by "Drill, baby, drill!" Are they going to be OK with "Mine, baby, mine!"?
It takes, on average, 16 years to move mining projects from discovery to first production. Where are the plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries for these ETMs? The plans don't exist. And if someone put them down on paper, they would face immense environmental clap back, along with economic and social challenges. Not only do mining and mineral processing require large volumes of water and large swaths of land, they are also highly energy and emission-intensive, which moves us further away from the net-zero goal.
The good news for American environmentalists is American coal miners will be out of business, but no one in our country will have to look out their window at an ETM mine or processing facility; those mines and facilities are highly geographically concentrated in China, the Republic of Congo and Indonesia. China currently controls 60 percent of global rare earth extraction and 85 percent of its processing. Can we trust these nations to develop ETMs in a low-carbon fashion without hurting the earth, pay their workers fairly and create safe work environments for them? Then, we can trust these countries to economically deal with the U.S. fairly -- since we don't have any of these ETMs.
We can force the technology into the U.S. energy economy; but as is, it won't be green, it won't make economic sense and we will again be beholden to foreign countries for energy resources. This time, instead of OPEC nations, China will be our advantaged trade partner.
On the other hand, the U.S. is a top global producer of oil and natural gas; likewise, we are a top refiner of oil and capable of becoming a world leader in LNG export.
Never fear! We will need more and more energy in our lifetime and beyond. And the energy mix will include oil and gas.
So let's be good citizens, engaging in the promotion of sound national energy policy and security, while playing our role in producing products our fellow citizens need and desire.
