The Shallowness of "Experts"

Why we must point it out and demand better.

This ‘stack is a bit different than my previous publications. Here I will review a recent post by

Bill McKibben

, a popular climate activist well connected with U.S. Democratic Party leadership (and the current U.S. Administration). He has written numerous books, published articles in the New Yorker and Rolling Stone, and was one of the original leaders within the climate-apocalypse-as-religion movement starting in the late 1980s/early 1990s. According to his bio he played a critical role in killing the Keystone XL Pipeline (the oil destined for the pipeline still makes its way to U.S. and global markets, but by train and other pipelines) and is now leading the climate activist charge to stop additional U.S. government approvals for liquid natural gas export facilities. He has publicly stated that he views himself on a mission to save the world — quite a heavy calling for anyone to take upon themselves. He is considered an expert on climate change and environmentalism.

So why am I doing this? I try to read a broad set of writers and experts to ensure I don’t get caught in an ideas echo chamber that just reinforces my beliefs and hardens my position on energy and climate issues. I subscribe to

Emily Atkin

’s Heated substack, among other climate activists. She also happens to be posting articles about the dangers of “methane” gas — not natural gas — and how we need to stop licensing the LNG export projects in the United States. Stay on message climate activists! (My ‘stack on the climate activists’ focus on methane emissions has aged well so far). I aim to cast a wide net of source material to try to prevent tunnel vision in my viewpoints.

And that brought me to McKibben’s substack.

I‘ve read a few of his essays and have taken issue with what he’s portrayed as factual and achievable for the clean energy transition. I’ve asked him some questions about his assumptions in a recent ‘stack of his on the progress of solar power deployment globally (he did not reply to my questions). His most recent publication was something I could not keep quiet about. In our current world where we are ruled by the tyranny of the few loudest radicals and told to toe the line or keep quiet, I just can’t anymore. It is nothing personal against the man — he could be a wonderful human being (he seems to honestly care about the environment) and I am not advocating for his voice to be silenced (I tend to be a free speech absolutist). I just want to put out an alternative voice to counter his ideas. So here we go…

Below is McKibben’s piece in full, with my thoughts interspersed.

Energy from Heaven

and not from Hell/Exxon.

by Bill McKibben

The title. He is not even trying to hide his moral high ground and righteousness of purpose by couching the issue as heavenly versus hellish forms of energy. The hyperbole (it is hyperbole, right?) is blatant and ridiculous. I guess from his perspective, in the battle to save the world from the perceived climate apocalypse, being objective and rational is not necessary. It is actually something to avoid. Just scare the shit out of everyone, make crazy and unsubstantiated claims about the looming climate catastrophe, blame fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry for all the evils of the world, demand we no longer use them (while still enjoying the quality of life its products provide), and maintain your moral virtue while you shout down those that ask question like “how will this work?” and “are you sure you know what you’re talking about?”

He is essentially claiming the sunlight comes to us as a gift from God for our beloved Gaia and is miraculously transformed into endless energy we can use at any time and for all things of everyday life. Does he know how solar power works? Does he know about night time, and clouds, and rain? Does he know of the additional infrastructure needed to complement the variability of solar power? Remember, utility solar PV has a best-case capacity factor of about 25%, meaning it produces power about 25% of the time (real world it is less — Germany’s was 11% in recent years). Where will we get power the other 75-90% of the time?

Here is a quote from a 2022 Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) article on capacity factors of various energy sources:

Based on the current CFs (capacity factors), an energy transition toward renewables will require a massive infrastructure and nominal capacity to be built and installed. To replace the current fossil capacity that generates 4 TWe with solar PV and wind at a 1:1 ratio, we must install 12 TWe from these renewables. This estimate applies to a replacement-only scenario with no growth, also assuming that the 0.5 CF for fossil plants is all waste and not needed to provide peak load. For an expansion scenario, each 1 TWe of fossil fuel electricity displaced by 1:1 solar PV and wind would require 6.5 TWe from these renewables.

So to replace fossil fuel electricity generation on a one-to-one basis you need 6.5 times renewables, assuming you want a growth scenario. And the more things are electrified, the more electricity you’ll need.

Power producers who rely heavily on solar/renewable power essentially require a second, back up power grid to support demand when the sun is not shining (and wind is not blowing). The electricity storage technologies to support a solar-based power grid are prohibitively expensive and limited in their coverage. They have limited numbers of hours they can operate, and limited numbers of cycles (charge, deplete, charge, deplete) they can perform annually. Please stop spreading lies that our current society can be powered alone by the “heavenly” energy of the sun. You are either woefully ignorant how the electricity system operates or you are purposefully stating falsehoods because you demand climate action at all costs.

McKibben text:

Amid the torrent of hideous news last week, one item might have skipped your notice: Exxon announced the acquisition—its biggest since picking up Mobil a quarter century ago—of one of the largest fracking operators in the world. As the AP reported, “including debt, Exxon is committing about $64.5 billion to the acquisition, leaving no doubt of the Texas energy company’s commitment to fossil fuels.” In fact, it’s the declaration of conviction that they think they have enough political juice to keep us hooked on oil and gas for a few more decades, even in the face of the highest temperatures in 125,000 years. (emphasis his)

I truly don’t understand McKibben’s point here. Is he claiming that ExxonMobil’s political juice is the sole reason why America (and the rest of the world) is “addicted” to oil and gas? Bill, are you still “hooked” on oil and gas or are you a recovering fossil fuel addict who has gone completely green? Are you writing your newsletters on parchment, under candlelight, with iron gall ink and then sending them via pigeon to your assistant to transcribe it on a computer so you don’t have to touch the devil’s energy source or its by-products? C’mon man!

Perhaps the world has become so “addicted” to fossil fuels because of its ample supply, energy density, and relative low cost that has underpinned the massive economic and technological advancements of the last couple of centuries. As to the claims of the highest temperatures in 125,000 years — I asked McKibben his thoughts on the temporary impact on global surface temperatures of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) volcanic eruption in January 2022, but he did not reply there either. I guess we’ll see how temperatures trend in the coming years.

McKibben text:

Our job is to stop them (see, for instance, the gathering fight to block new export terminals for LNG).

The most concerning issue here is the influence McKibben has on the current U.S. Administration. When he pushes to block new LNG export terminals (along with Emily Atkin and others in the climate alarmism industry), the Biden Administration listens. They, for some reason, are afraid of backlash from the climate alarmists. The Left has unleashed Pandora’s box by fostering and supporting the disillusioned and often technically illiterate climate protestors, whipping up hysteria in coordination with the media and other government/industry/academia leaders, and now they fear the very same people they emboldened. Perhaps they fear a low voter turnout in 2024 if the extreme environmental wing of the Democratic Party is downtrodden?

There was huge blowback from the greens when the Biden Admin approved the Willow oil project in Alaska earlier this year and the recent approval of the natural gas GTN Xpress pipeline in the Pacific Northwest. And by blowback I mean Twitter, er X, had a lot of angry and nonsensical posts; there were a lot of angry op-eds; and, the hand-wringing and rending of garments from environmentalists was loud. The White House seems loathe to kindle their wrath in the coming months, especially with COP28 coming up. You can’t make a decision to approve the export of huge amounts of additional LNG right before the climate conference.

The United States is the largest LNG exported in the world. Its LNG growth over the last couple years allowed Europe to survive Russia’s weaponization of natural gas supplies after its invasion of Ukraine. It has played a huge role in maintaining European alliance cohesion and support for Ukraine. If there was no U.S. LNG available to Europe, the Russia-Ukraine war likely would have gone a lot different. And natural gas will play a critical role in reducing GHG emissions and enhancing energy security for existing and new markets. The critical role U.S. LNG exports will play in geopolitics in the coming decades cannot be underestimated. Limiting additional capacity is crazy.

As recent as the end of the Obama Administration there was climate activist support for natural gas uptake as it was the primary reason for U.S. emissions reductions. The coal-to-gas electricity switch — according to Carbon Brief — accounted for a third of U.S. emissions reductions since 2005. Wind power contributed about 20%. Lower industrial use another 18%. McKibben’s beloved solar power contributed an estimated 3% of U.S. emissions reductions since 2005. But now, climate alarmists have decided that natural gas is no longer the righteous pathway to emissions reductions.

McKibben text:

And one way to do that is to point out, over and over, the sheer wonder of the replacements we have on hand. Which is to say, the sun, and also the wind that the sun produces by heating the earth more in some spots than others, creating the breezes that turn the turbines. I wrote last week that we were now adding a gigawatt of solar power daily around the planet, most of it in China. That’s great, but we need more and we need it fast—and so let’s just concentrate for a moment on the almost absurd beauty of the idea that we have learned to power the things we need from the rays of a burning orb that lies 93 million miles distant across the vastness of space. Let me provide just a few facts about where we lie right now with that transition.

Again, I don’t think McKibben understands how solar power — or power grids — actually work. His religious, almost savior-esque description of solar power is very telling. This is a crusade. Pointing out, over and over, the “absurd beauty” and “sheer wonder” inherent in solar power will be enough to overcome all the technical challenges and actual physics involved in converting the sun’s rays to actual useful electricity, when its needed. Phew!

Other writers have recently published some excellent thoughts on solar power markets. Please see these links for more context as I don’t need to rewrite them here —

environMENTAL

’s Sunburned,

Robert Bryce

’s piece on solar,

Doomberg

’s Solar Calculator, and

GEM Energy Analytics

’s pieces on solar cannibalization and market prices. These are just a few of the great analytical publications on the challenges and potential of solar. I’d also flag the recent media stories discussing the stock price pummeling that many solar companies are taking lately. Even with all those government subsidies companies still are not performing well.

McKibben text:

#Every week new data emerges about the rapid fall in the price of solar, which as PV magazine reported this week seems to have “no end in sight.” This is incredibly good news for the poorest people on the planet, almost all of whom live in places with abundant sunlight, and where they are currently shipping huge amounts of money off to the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other hydrocarbon exporters: something like 80% of humans live in countries that have to import fossil fuels. The sun, by contrast, delivers its rays for free each morning.

Again, McKibben glosses over all of the technical requirements, investments, and infrastructure needed to convert the “free” sun into useable electricity. Many of the poor nations he references have fossil fuel reserves that the West are actively limiting in the name of climate activism and a “just transition.” As I’ve stated before, green colonialism is real and a danger to the economic prospects of poor and developing nations. The U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia are not the only countries who benefit from fossil fuel exports. What about Angola, Nigeria, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Mozambique, and on and on? Many poor/developing nation’s economic viability and social cohesion rely on fossil fuel export revenues. Oh, and the really poor people who don’t even have access to reliable electricity? They are not sending huge amounts of money to the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

McKibben text:

#So far, the suddenly rapid spread of solar has not dramatically cut the use of fossil fuels, but analysts at the Rocky Mountain Institute said last week that that is coming fast. They reminded us to focus on “flows, not stocks.”

It is frequently noted that fossil fuels account for over 80 percent of global primary energy and this number hasn’t budged meaningfully for decades.

Rarely mentioned is the fact that renewables have been taking an increasing share of the growth in energy supply, and all of the growth in 2019-21. Moving the focus from stocks to flows moves the conclusion from no change to radical change. Concentrating on the size of the fossil fuel system today is like focusing on the large number of horses in 1900 — it was as good a guide then as it is now.

By the end of this decade, the core renewable technologies will all dominate sales in their respective areas; solar and wind already make up over 80 percent of the capacity additions in electricity, and by 2030 EVs will be over two-thirds of car sales. Once renewable technologies dominate sales, it is simply a matter of time and depreciation of the old system before they dominate stocks.

Seems McKibben is woefully unaware of the current challenges to the wind and EV industry. He also is clueless to what Dan Yergin correctly points out about past energy “transitions”. They have all been additive. The new energy source(s) gain market share, but the overall market grows as more and more people rise from poverty and increase their living standards and energy demand. We use more coal today than ever before, decades after the energy transition from coal to oil. Sure more and more renewables will come online (which I am supportive of), but so will the need for more and more fossil fuels. Wind and solar and back-up battery systems will NOT bring 7 billion people up to developed world standards.

McKibben text:

+You can see this beginning to emerge already. A report out this week from the climate think tank Ember predicted that “carbon emissions from the global electricity sector may peak this year, after plateauing in the first half of 2023, because of a surge in wind and solar power.” That is remarkably good news: in fact, the “new report on global electricity generation found that the growth of renewables was so rapid that it was close to the incredibly fast rate required if the world is to hit the tripling of capacity by the end of the decade that experts believe is necessary to stay on the 1.5C pathway.” Read that again if you need a shot of anti-despair.

The article referenced by McKibben is from The Guardian (say what you will about it). It buries the lead in the last paragraph which states the first half of 2023 saw an abnormally low amount of electricity generation growth —only .4%. The ten-year average is 2.6%. If you believe electricity demand growth will remain nearly flat going forward then I suppose one could argue power sector emissions could peak soon. If you want a shot at plugging into the truth, read below.

According to the IEA above, “more than 90% of the increase in clean energy investment since 2021 has taken place in advanced economies (read as the EU, United States, Japan) and China.” So the rich folks of the world are investing in renewables, while the rest of the world are investing in any energy sources they can to ensure reliable, affordable energy is available to its citizens. The global power sector is nowhere near reaching its peak for global carbon emissions. China’s coal power plant buildout (it accounts for 90% of all newly permitted and new construction projects globally in 2022-2023) will ensure the global power sector emissions don’t drop anytime soon.

McKibben text:

#But of course we need to up that rate, because we have to be able to provide electricity for pretty much everything that currently requires oil and gas: running cars, trucks, buses; cooking dinner; heating and cooling homes. Some of that new capacity can definitely come off rooftops and buildings; in Australia, where a third of homes now have rooftop solar, there was one day last month when grid operators reported an all-time record low demand for their power plants, because so many people were generating power off the tops of their homes.

This is a recurring trope climate alarmists use. Point out the one day where renewables provided the majority of power, and highlight it as proof renewables can power everything, all the time. The single day in Australia McKibben references — solar provided 57% of the total electricity, with mild temperatures and sunny skies resulting in demand being abnormally low. As

Doomberg

highlighted (the original proposition was put forward by Francis Menton of the blog Manhattan Contrarian), show me the proof/demonstration project where renewables plus battery back-up provides a properly functioning power grid at reasonable prices with reliable service. I dare you…

McKibben text:

#It’s true, as the remarkable Sammy Roth showed in the LA Times, that even in sunny parts of the West rooftop solar won’t be able to provide all, or even most, of what we need. But the good news here is that, even when we have to use some agricultural land for solar farms, it’s remarkably efficient. Indeed, check this out: if you took just the farm fields in America currently grown corn used as ethanol and covered them with solar panels, you’d be able to provide all the power America needs. You wouldn’t be cutting into the food supply because it’s not used for food now—you’d just be letting that soil rest, instead of pouring nitrogen on it every growing season. (In addition, as Matthew Eisenson pointed out recently, “recent research has shown that growing crops, such as tomatoes, in between rows of solar panels in hot, dry climates may increase yields by creating shade, which conserves water, increases humidity, and lowers temperatures.”)

At least here McKibben admits rooftop solar won’t cut it. But he does continue to throw around ideas like replacing a lot of crop land with solar panels (don’t forget about some tomatoes grown between the panels) without any analysis behind the claim. I don’t think he is aware of the solar cannibalization effect where solar power receives lower market prices when market penetration gets higher. There are a lot of variables and complexities in managing a properly functioning power grid. You can’t just wish it true.

McKibben text:

#Of course we don’t want to put every solar farm on ag land; there’s scrub forest, and desert, and oh yes, golf courses, which at least in Japan are now being converted in fairly large numbers to solar farms. We’re in an emergency—that makes sense. Even if you have to use forestland, though, the numbers are impressive. Eisenson again: “An acre of solar panels producing zero-emissions electricity saves between 267,526 to 303,513 pounds, or 121 to 138 metric tons, of carbon dioxide per year. By comparison, according to the EPA, the average acre of forest in the United States sequesters 0.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, an acre of solar panels in Virginia reduces approximately 144 to 166 times more carbon dioxide per year than an acre of forest.”

Here he even advocates for cutting down forests to build solar farms! Is there nothing that is superior to the “heavenly” solar rays? I’d also again point McKibben back to

Robert Bryce

’s writings on power density and the challenges to solar power market penetration.

McKibben text:

I give you all these statistics in hopes you’ll make use of them. The fight of our time—the fight of the next five or six years—is to build as much renewable energy as we can, and employ as much energy efficiency and conservation as we can. That’s by far the most important part of reining in temperatures—and reining in the death that comes with breathing the pollution from fossil fuel, and the massive damage caused by mining coal and drilling for oil and gas.

We will move to sun and wind to power this earth, because they are cheap and elegant. The only question is if we’ll make that move before we break the planet, and that is up to us.

I am not sure I can use any of the statistics he provided. He discussed how solar power plants on deforested land is better for GHG emissions reductions. He discussed the climate NGO report about the potential for global power sector emissions to peak in the coming year or so. And we were urged to focus on flows of renewables, and not stocks as a way to enhance the good story about renewables penetration.

This wouldn’t be so serious if McKibben didn’t hold so much sway over America’s current Administration and wasn’t viewed as an expert in his field. There is a real risk his pressure campaign (along with other climate alarmists) on the Biden Administration could result in delayed decisions on future LNG projects in the United States. And that can have knock on effects geopolitically, for markets, for jobs, and on the continued coal-to-gas electricity switch which has so benefitted the reduction in U.S. GHG emissions. Especially if you can eventually add carbon sequestration technology to gas power plants.

So the LNG export projects under consideration by the U.S. government may languish until after the next U.S. election, especially if no action is taken by early 2024. The U.S. Administration wouldn’t dare make a controversial fossil fuel project decision close to the 2024 Presidential elections. The closer we get to the U.S. election, the less likely the Administration will do anything to irritate a chunk of its base.

All of this is meant to show, yet again, that our “expert” class quite often fails to show expertise. They often lack basic comprehension of markets, economics, physics, etc. They are often not technical experts that think deeply about their topics or about the outcomes of their proposed solutions. They tend to be able to write and talk well. They are able to learn the party line and ensure they are on message to stay on the morally “right” side of the issue at hand. And they make the same unproven claims over and over again in part to drown out any contrary perspectives. Luxury beliefs run rampant in our expert class, and those beliefs are not tethered to reality. Or at least not to the reality of 99.9% of the world. The .1% who often set global policy across most sectors of the world likely don’t directly experience the outcomes of their proposed policy prescriptions. We have to do better.