Flytende solcellepaneler på en innsjø i Haltern i Tyskland den 3. mai 2022. Foto: Martin Meissner / AP / NTB.

Tanken om en global energirevolusjon der fossile energikilder blir erstattet, ofte kalt «det grønne skiftet», er en farlig vrangforestilling, hevder energianalytikeren Mark P. Mills i en forestående rapport fra tenketanken Manhattan Institute.

I rapporten, som Wall Street Journal har offentliggjort smakebiter av, fremholder Mills at fossile brensler i praksis knapt blir erstattet, og alternative energikilder ikke kan lagres på noe i nærheten av samme skala.

Mills, som er utdannet fysiker og vitenskapelig ansatt ved Northwestern University, er en prisbelønt energiskribent og tidligere regjeringsrådgiver, som har vitnet en rekke ganger for Kongressen.

Etter å ha analysert energimarkeder og energipolitikk verden rundt i lang tid, har han kommet til at hverken den voldsomt oppblåste retorikken om energiskiftet eller de mange titalls milliarder dollar som er blitt brukt til å subsidiere det, har gitt noen betydelig endring i energilandskapet, skriver Wall Street Journal.

De fossile energikildenes andel av totalen har gått ned med skarve to prosent på tjue år, konstaterer Mills i rapporten:

Civilization still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of all energy, a mere two percentage points lower than two decades ago. Solar and wind technologies today supply barely 5% of global energy. Electric vehicles still offset less than 0.5% of world oil demand.

Alt menneskeheten gjør krever energi, men talspersoner for «avkarbonisering» undervurderer energibehovet i verden og digitaliseringen hjelper ikke, poengterer han:

One can begin with a reality that cannot be blinked away: energy is needed for everything that is fabricated, grown, operated, or moved… digital devices and hardware—the most complex products ever produced at scale—require, on average, about 1,000 times more energy to fabricate, pound for pound, than the products that dominated the 20th century…

The global Cloud, society’s newest and biggest infrastructure, uses twice as much electricity as the entire nation of Japan. And then, of course, there are all the other common, vital needs for energy, from heating and cooling homes to producing food and delivering freight.

Dertil kommer at det globale energibehovet er økende:

Advocates of a carbon-free world underestimate not only how much energy the world already uses, but how much more energy the world will yet demand… In America, there are nearly as many vehicles as people, while in most of the world, fewer than 1 in 20 people have a car. More than 80% of the world population has yet to take a single flight.

Mange års erfaring viser at sol- og vindkraft ikke er konkurransedyktig, men snarere gir betydelig større energikostnader, hevder Mills:

Claims that wind, solar, and [electrical vehicles] have reached cost parity with traditional energy sources or modes of transportation are not based on evidence. Even before the latest period of rising energy prices, Germany and Britain—both further down the grid transition path than the U.S.— have seen average electricity rates rise 60%–110% over the past two decades.

Også i USA er energien blitt dyrere til tross for at fossile brensler er blitt billigere. Årsaken er investeringer i ny infrastruktur for alternative energikilder:

Instead, rates have been pushed higher thanks to elevated spending on the otherwise unneeded infrastructure required to transmit wind/solar-generated electricity, as well as the increased costs to keep lights on during “droughts” of wind and sun that come from also keeping conventional power plants available (like having an extra, fully fueled car parked and ready to go) in effect by spending on two grids.

På denne måten betaler man svært mye for å få svært lite:

Added up over the past two decades, the cumulative subsidies across the world for biofuels, wind, and solar approach about $5 trillion, all of that to supply roughly 5% of global energy.

Kull, olje, gass og vannkraft har den store fordelen at det er enkelt og billig å lagre energien i store mengder til bruk i det øyeblikket man trenger den, fortsetter Mills.

The U.S., on average, has about one to two months’ worth of national demand in storage for each kind of hydrocarbon. Such enormous quantities are possible because it costs less than $1 a barrel per month to store oil or the energy equivalent of natural gas. Storing coal is even cheaper. Thus, over the past century, engineers achieved the feat of building a nation-spanning group of electricity grids that powers nearly everything, anytime, while still consuming less than 3% of the GDP.

Å lagre elektrisiteten som produseres av sol- og vindkraftverk er til sammenligning et mareritt:

Storing electricity itself—the output from solar/wind machines—remains extremely expensive despite the vaunted battery revolution. Lithium batteries, a Nobel-winning invention, are some 400% better than lead-acid batteries in terms of energy stored per unit of weight (which is critical for vehicles). And the costs for lithium batteries have declined more than 10-fold in the past two decades. Even so, it costs at least $30 to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil using lithium batteries.

Batterier kan derfor ikke lagre energi for flere dagers bruk, langt mindre flere ukers, konkluderer Mills.

Det er usannsynlig at Joe Biden ville lytte til en slik forklaring, om han overhodet ville forstå den, men virkeligheten blir ikke borte, lyder den sarkastiske sluttkommentaren fra redaktøren for ledersiden hos Wall Street Journal, James Freeman.

Kjøp «Et varslet energisjokk» her!