• 5 hours The Federal Reserve and Money...Aspects which are not widely known
  • 8 minutes How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 12 minutes  What Russia has reached over three months diplomatic and military pressure on West ?
  • 43 mins GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
  • 6 days "And this is perhaps the most dangerous kind of government there can be."
  • 6 hours Coincidence of EIA Report Delay? - "I had seen it delayed minutes, and a couple of times a few hours, but don’t recall something like this — do others?" asks Javier Blas
  • 1 day Demonising fossil fuels has caused major grid problem in Australia
  • 6 hours "...too many politicians believe things that aren’t true." says Robert Rapier
  • 2 days Oil Stocks, Market Direction, Bitcoin, Minerals, Gold, Silver - Technical Trading <--- Chris Vermeulen & Gareth Soloway weigh in
  • 20 hours Welcome to Technocracy - The New World Energy Order... "1000s Of Sydney Homes Plunged Into Darkness As Aussie 'Price Cap' Policy Sparks Energy Shortage"
  • 3 days "How to Calculate Your Individual ESG Score to ensure that your Digital ID 'benefits' and money are accessible"
  • 327 days Beware the Left's 'Degrowth' Movement (i.e. why Covid-19 is Good)
  • 5 days ESG Topic - "German Police Raid Deutsche Bank, DWS Over Allegations Of Greenwashing" - ZeroHedge Bloomberg and others
David Blackmon

David Blackmon

David Blackmon is an independent energy analyst/consultant based in Mansfield, TX. David has enjoyed a 38-year career in the oil and gas industry, the last…

More Info

Premium Content

Is The Energy Transition Moving Too Quickly?

  • The Rice University-housed think tank warns that current projections regarding the viability of renewables and electric vehicles largely ignores their true environmental costs;
  • “With alternative energy sources not yet able to sufficiently substitute, consumers all over  the world would feel “energy price pain” on even basic necessities such as food;
  • Researchers warn that  a push to defund fossil fuels too rapidly “risks destabilizing a global energy-food-water-human well-being nexus that, sufficiently perturbed, would likely delay energy transition efforts for decades.”

Researchers at Rice University’s Baker Institute released a new report Monday warning of the human and economic costs of moving too rapidly to a desired “energy transition” from fossil fuels to renewables and electric vehicles. The study, authored by Gabe Collins, Baker Botts Fellow in Energy and Environmental Regulatory Affairs at the Baker Institute, and Michelle Michot Foss, fellow in energy, minerals and materials, warns that a premature transition would result in consumers across the globe feeling “energy price pain” on even basic necessities such as food.

The study notes that past energy transitions, such as from wood to coal and from coal to oil, took decades to come to fruition and involved moves from less energy-dense sources to more energy-dense fuels. That is not the case with the current energy transition, which proposes a rapid move from high-density to low-density energy sources. Given that and other realities, the authors warn that the negative human and economic impacts from government and investor efforts to force the transition too rapidly “risks destabilizing a global energy-food-water-human well-being nexus that, sufficiently perturbed, would likely delay energy transition efforts for decades.”

Europe is currently experiencing a winter energy crisis stemming directly from efforts by governments and investors there to prematurely force a shift from coal, natural gas, and nuclear in power generation to wind and other renewable energy sources, and we now see many of the higher costs and human impacts predicted in this study playing out in real-time. We also see Vladimir Putin taking advantage of the geopolitical leverage his country’s position as Europe’s major natural gas supplier provide him in the scenario playing out today vis a vis Ukraine.

The study’s authors go on to note that the messaging and narrative used to promote this energy transition fails to fully account for the major role fossil fuels like oil and natural gas currently play directly in the manufacture, distribution and operation of the renewable energy sources and electric vehicles that are the transition’s chosen rent-seeking industrial clients:

-         “…oil and gas literally form the physical building blocks of the wind turbines and solar panels the world now craves. Wind turbines would not exist without fiberglass and thermoset plastics. Solar photovoltaics would not be possible without plexiglass. Electric vehicles, meanwhile, embed large amounts of energy (and carbon) in their batteries and many kilograms (kg) of plastic and other petroleum-derived materials,” the report says at one point;

-         In the next paragraph, the authors note that “A Tesla Model 3, the world’s bestselling full-size EV to date, contains approximately 200 kg of plastics, rubber, and textiles— virtually all of which are petroleum derived. The plastics content of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will likely increase as automakers use advanced polymers to reduce weight and accommodate heavy batteries to push the performance envelope. And battery packs themselves will likely incorporate more plastics for weight and safety.”

The authors also note the role that natural gas generation plays in providing backup capacity for wind and solar installations on the world’s power grids, along with the reality that, even with battery backup, global natural gas generation capacity will of necessity have to dramatically increase along with new wind and solar. This is far from the ‘delete and replace’ tradeoff regularly advertised by proponents of the energy transition.

The study goes onto discuss another inconvenient truth transition proponents regularly dismiss, having to do with materials intensity associated with so-called “green” energy sources. “Materials intensity associated with energy transition technologies like wind, solar, battery storage for grids, and battery EVs exceeds that of conventional technologies because of lower energy density. In fact, the pronounced tradeoff between energy density and materials intensity represents an enormous gap in energy transition thinking, analysis, and policymaking,” the authors report.

What it all adds up to is a situation in which the messaging and narrative around this much-promoted transition fails to convey proper information about its real costs and limited ability to deliver on its promises. With a real-world demonstration of these failures to deliver and very real economic and human costs playing out across the European continent today, leaders in the rest of the world would do well to pay close attention to this study from the Baker Institute.

By David Blackmon for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • Joa Falken on February 08 2022 said:
    Strange consideration that more energy supply (in this case from renewables) should lead to higher prices for energy.

    Anyway, the energy and materials required to build wind turbines and solar farms make up a quite small share of total demand, and they pay back that energy requirement within some months. Nevertheless, society should accomplish that as long as we have enough energy available. Anyhow, energy used to produce more of this equipment is less than energy from such equipment; the equation would only change in case of very high growth rates.

    Energy required for food production incl. fertilizers also is a small part of total demand. Even if the initial energy "investment" for renewables would be taken off some existing energy use, no need to take it from food production.
  • Joa Falken on February 08 2022 said:
    It can be argued that natural gas-based power generation capacity will not decrease much along with more wind and solar power, as long as the latter provide enough energy only at times of high wind and during bright daytime.

    But the author should explain why he believes "global natural gas generation capacity will of necessity [!] have to dramatically increase [!] along with new wind and solar."

    There will rather be a situation, where still a lot of power generation capacity with gas is required, but operated for less hours of the year, so that goes along with less gas consumption, and thus less production capacities needed for that gas.
  • Mamdouh Salameh on February 08 2022 said:
    The world has already witnessed the adverse impact of the EU’s hasty energy transition as manifested by the ongoing energy crisis embroiling the EU and sending energy and power prices to unheard of record levels. Such haste has caused a gas-to-coal shift and has given a new lease of life to coal thus retarding the drive to net-zero emissions by a few years.

    This new study by researchers at Rice University’s Baker Institute released on Monday confirms the adverse impact of hasty energy transition on food prices, energy and power prices and the global economy.

    Tell this to the Chief of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol who published last year a net-zero emission 2050 roadmap calling for the immediate halt of any new investments in oil and gas in what has become known mockingly as la-la-land roadmap. And to compound his error and lack of judgement, he claimed that renewables had nothing to do with the Europe’s energy crisis.

    Global energy transition will never succeed without major contributions of natural gas and other fossil fuels. Moreover, the notions of a post-oil era, peak oil demand, net-zero emissions and total energy transition are mere illusions.

    Oil and gas will continue to run the global economy throughout the 21st century and probably far beyond. Furthermore, EVs will never prevail over ICEs.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
  • KENNETH CHANG on February 08 2022 said:
    had it started in 1980, it would be a breezy transition for everyone.

Leave a comment




EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News