Energy

Bernie Sanders’ Green Energy Dystopian Fantasy


Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the self-described democratic socialist and a candidate for president, set a goal to end the use of fossil fuels entirely and also indicated a desire to prosecute—yes, criminally prosecute—executives at oil, gas and coal companies. But Sanders’ proposals are not serious. Or at least we have to hope they are not, because if these proposals came to be implemented, we would face a dystopia fit for a teenage fantasy novel.

Here are some of the basics of Sanders’ plan:

  1. $16.3 trillion designated over the next decade to transitioning the United States to only electricity generated from renewable energies.
  2. Gas powered engines would be phased out.
  3. Create 20 million jobs and offer assistance to displaced fossil fuel workers, which would “end unemployment.”

Let’s look at likely outcomes of this plan.

Without fossil fuels, Americans would have a very difficult time traveling long distances. The best new electric car batteries only carry a range less than 350 miles in normal conditions. They take too long to charge for serious road trips. Moreover, there is no indication that a breakthrough in battery technology is on the horizon. It could come soon, but we can’t count on that.

Plane travel would be out of the question. Again, batteries are not good enough for commercial air travel. They are also too heavy, and unlike jet fuel, batteries do not significantly decrease in weight over the course of the flight. This would severely decrease the range of an airplane.

Thus, without gas powered engines, we could not travel as easily for business meetings or conventions. We would have trouble visiting grandma for Thanksgiving. Summer road trips would be out of the question. Hawaii and Alaska would basically be marooned and separated from the rest of the country. Train travel would be the only option for any trip more than a 300 hundred miles. Essentially, our movement would be like it was in the late 1800s, except a little worse. After all, in the late 1800s, people traversed oceans in coal-powered ships. We would be limited to sail or—and this is prohibitively expensive for commercial use—nuclear ships.

If we followed Sanders’ plan and only used renewable energy for electricity generation, we would need to dam every river of any size. It would cause immeasurable damage to aquatic and land ecosystems across the country. Solar and wind power are not sufficient to produce the electricity we need, because they do not produce at all times and, again, batteries are not good enough to store the power they generate. Moreover, to create enough solar and wind power to significantly alter our power generation mix, we would need to blanket the country with installations—creating blights and disruptions that kill birds across the country.

Nuclear is not a renewable energy. If Senator Sanders actually wants all power created by renewable energies only, he would need to decommission nuclear power plants. In 2016, 33% of U.S. electricity was generated from natural gas, 31% from coal, 19% from nuclear, 7% from hydropower and 5% from wind. If only hydropower and wind power remain from those top five power sources, the U.S. would need to severely decrease its electricity usage. There is no good way to increase hydropower and wind power (and solar power) enough to make up for the loss of fossil fuels and nuclear.

Say goodbye to televisions, computers except maybe for designated work, cell phone use for entertainment, large refrigerators, air conditioning and even lights at night. It is unclear how we would heat our homes and businesses, because we would not have enough electricity to heat them that way, and the other ways use fossil fuels. Wood burning is typically more hazardous to the air and environment than heating oil, so be prepared for cold winters. Moreover, how would we charge these electric vehicles we are supposed to use?

We would also have to reconcile ourselves to mass starvation. Without gas powered engines, our farmers in the great plains could not efficiently cultivate and farm their acres. Food production, which has massively benefited from modern technology, would suffer tremendously. Moreover, refrigerated transportation would be limited, meaning we would lack choice and diversity in our supermarkets.

Plastics are made from hydrocarbons, traditionally using oil and using natural gas feedstock. Generally, the production plants are powered by fossil fuels. If the plants were powered another way—likely going back to hydropower like the mills of old that were situated along rivers and destroyed the natural beauty and habitat—we would likely see much greater creation and use of plastics. Plastics would be necessary to create lightweight vehicles and other efficient building material to partially compensate for the lack of good power sources. Plastic would also be cheaper, because the carbon-based ingredients would no longer be used for fuel as well. This would mean more plastic and more plastic pollution in the oceans and in landfills.

Yes, we could consider Sanders’ plan. But the we would live in darkness. Most of us would never travel. We would be hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Most of us would not have access to electronics. Our landscapes would be filled with solar panels and windmills that kill birds. Our rivers would all be dammed. And many of us would starve.





READ NEWS SOURCE

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.