OPINION:
How clean is “clean” energy, and are Democrats’ “clean” energy solutions just dirty energy in a pretty package?
Without question, there is a lot of gaslighting when it comes to discussions surrounding clean energy. The “Green New Left” wants to pick winners and losers in the energy sector and promote their narrow scope of “clean” energy, but their solutions are not always effective or as environmentally friendly as they make them out to be.
I support the use of “clean” energy, but in the context of a market-driven, all-of-the-above strategy that also includes nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, and clean coal.
However, I have serious concerns regarding the Democrats’ attempts to narrow the scope of our energy sector to include only what they consider to be “clean” energy.
When considering how clean a product or energy source is, the emissions generated throughout the full life cycle of the product should be considered, but the Left’s clean energy talking points often omit reality.
Take electric vehicles, for example, the Biden Administration’s apparent “solution” to climate change. Relying solely on lithium-ion batteries, an industry dominated by China and often fueled by exploitive child labor, a “clean” electric vehicle comes with a lot of baggage.
In reality, electric vehicles have a remarkably dirty life cycle and generate more emissions during their manufacturing than gas-powered vehicles, mostly due to the production of batteries. The rare earth minerals necessary for the essential magnets in EVs are often mined in countries with little to no environmental regulations or regard for human rights. For example, lithium and cobalt are essential for EV batteries and for storing power from wind and solar, and over 60% of the world’s cobalt supply comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo where young children work in the mines.
The dirty supply chain of EV manufacturing is nearly entirely offshored, out of sight and out of mind. But does environmental justice stop at the water’s edge?
While I personally have nothing against electric vehicles, they are far from the utopian vehicle they are often made out to be, and we certainly should not be forcing them on Americans under the guise of environmentalism. Banning the sale of gas-powered vehicles in California by 2035 will just cause energy insecurity, higher costs for consumers, and blackouts, not the environmental salvation liberal politicians are promising.
Much like the electric vehicles, solar energy also has significant environmental implications. Setting up large-scale solar farms requires massive amounts of land alteration, polluting habitats and soil. This not only impacts the ecosystem, but also agricultural development.
It is important to consider how the generation capacity of different clean sources of energy compare. The generation capacity of nuclear energy significantly outpaces other “clean” sources. In my district, the Oconee Nuclear Station houses three nuclear reactors, with over 2,550 megawatts of continuous carbon-free power, while occupying less than two square miles.
Replacing the Oconee Nuclear Station with solar energy would require 107 square miles of land. To put that into perspective, Washington, D.C., is over 68 square miles. If covered completely in solar panels, Washington, D.C., would not come close to producing the 2,550 megawatts of carbon-free power that Oconee’s three nuclear reactors produce taking up just two square miles.
Where is all of this new solar and wind capacity going to go? I can tell you where it won’t go, blue states whose politicians push the Green New Deal agenda, but they don’t care if it takes up miles of land in middle America. Just like the child mining required for EVs, as long as it is out of sight, out of mind, they don’t want to know the truth of their “feel good” clean agenda.
The same clean energy hypocrisy applies when it comes to wind energy, an intermittent, inefficient form of energy production. Once their use is complete, wind turbines cannot be recycled, so they pile up in “wind turbine graveyards” or landfills where they will remain forever.
Instead of forcing a narrow “clean” energy strategy and making the choices for consumers as the Democrats try to do, Republicans support an all-of-the-above energy solution that allows science, technology, innovation, and the market to lead the way.
Nuclear energy, for instance, is clean, reliable, affordable, and secure, and is the only carbon-free energy source that is available 24/7/365. South Carolina’s nuclear power reactors produce 95% of the state’s carbon-free electricity and over half of the state’s total electricity, generating enough electricity each year to power over four million households across the state.
The Biden administration is using the energy crisis and high gas prices to push wind, solar, and electric vehicles on Americans in the name of “clean energy” while killing domestic energy production. As I’ve said before look to Europe’s impending winter of blackouts to see where a radical rush to a “clean” energy agenda would take us. We should instead focus on unleashing the United States’ abundant, reliable, and affordable energy resources instead of pigeonholing ourselves in the Democrats’ “clean” energy agenda.
• U.S. Representative Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Republican, represents the state’s Third Congressional District and is a Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee where he serves on the Subcommittees on Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and Communications and Technology. He is co-chair of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT) and is a leading advocate in Congress of unleashing an all-of-the-above energy approach and domestic energy production. He is a proud Clemson University graduate, resident of Laurens County, husband, and father of three adult sons.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.