Why Fossil Fuels are More Dependable than Renewables

Compare and Contrast Articles

The United States has long been a leading nation in energy consumption, with demand only increasing as the years go on. As such, energy policy is a hotly contested topic, with there being a wide range of opinions on the best way to move forward. This paper will be comparing and contrasting two articles that take opposing views on energy policy in the United States. The first article, titled "The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To", was written by Michael Shellenberger and by Forbes in 2019. In it, the author makes the case that renewable energy is expensive, unreliable, and often requires subsidies from taxpayers—and, ultimately, that renewables were never meant to provide all the energy for an industrialized nation like the US. In the second article, titled “Should We Burn More Fossil Fuels, Not Less?” by Suhaas Bhat and Connor Chung, published in Foreign Policy in 2022, the opposite view is taken, where the authors argue for reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy production in the United States as a way to create jobs, reduce pollution, and increase energy security. While both articles make valid points, I ultimately side with Shellenberger’s argument simply because it is more pragmatic—and when it comes to energy it is important to be practical rather than ideologically idealistic. I believe that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, and that it is important for the United States to take steps to shore up its energy independence using methods that work, that are dependable, and that can be effective. Renewable energy can be helpful, but it cannot fill the void left behind by abandonment of fossil fuels. Additionally, I believe that Shellenberger’s argument is more convincing overall because he provides more concrete data to support his claims while Bhat and Chung rely heavily on opinion, criticism and conjecture. Ultimately, I believe that Shellenberger has the more persuasive article because it shows quite plainly that although renewable energy is an important part of the future of energy production in the United States it should not come at the expense of fossil fuels as the backbone of energy independence.

Themes and Points of the Two Articles

The theme of the article by Shellenberger is this: renewables are not capable of powering modern civilization because they are not as reliable or as efficient as fossil fuels. Additionally, he argues that the production of renewable energy requires more land and more resources than the production of fossil fuels. He also points out what others say against the argument and offers up rebuttals that are based on evidence, data, and analysis of statistics.

While Shellenberger's points are well-taken, it is important to consider the other side of the argument. That is done by Bhat and Chung in their article, which focuses on the contrary themes, which are these: Renewables have the potential to be much more efficient than fossil fuels, and they are becoming more reliable as technology improves. Additionally, while the production of renewable energy may require more land and resources than the production of fossil fuels, the long-term benefits of using renewable energy are significant. In light of these points, it is clear that the two articles can be compared and contrasted thematically.

Shellenger’s main points are that renewables are not capable of powering modern civilization. He cites several reasons for this, including the fact that renewables are intermittent and often require backup from other sources of energy. He also notes that renewable energy is often more expensive than other forms of energy, and that it can have negative environmental impacts. Overall, Shellenberger provides a convincing argument that renewables are not currently up to the task of powering modern civilization. However, it is worth noting that his argument is based on current conditions; as renewable energy technology improves, it may eventually become capable of meeting the needs of modern society—which is a point that Bhat and Chung make. Still, their point is mainly speculative for there is no guarantee that such technology or the resources needed will ever materialize.

Nonetheless, the main points of Bhat and Chung are that burning more fossil fuels will not help to combat climate change. They point out that the argument in support of fossil fuels rests on a number of false assumptions, including the idea that we can simply capture and store the carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels. Even if this were possible, they argue, it would be incredibly expensive and would do nothing to reduce the other harmful emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion, such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Furthermore, they point out that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to air pollution, which has been linked to a range of health problems. In light of these concerns, they conclude that theargument for burning more fossil fuels is deeply flawed and dangerous.

The More Persuasive Article

Overall, Shellenberger relies on data more than argumentation and conjecture. For instance, Shellenberger states that in Germany, “of the 7,700 new kilometers of transmission lines needed, only 8% have been built, while large-scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. ‘A large part of the energy used is lost,’ the reporters note of a much-hyped hydrogen gas project, ‘and the efficiency is below 40%... No viable business model can be developed from this’.” This leads Shellenberger to ask an important question regarding development and progress: “If renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to ‘leapfrog’ fossil fuels?” This is a good point, and it follows logically from the data.

Bhat and Chung on the other hand argue from the point of view of ideology and ideals, speculating that all these problems will work themselves out in the future and that the important thing to do is to maintain the course. But this is not a recommendation that logically follows from data readily obtainable. The situation in Europe is dire, as it moves away from fossil fuels supplied by Russia. The energy lost is already throwing the continent into chaos. What would happen if there was total abandonment of fossil fuels and commitment to only renewable? Civilizations the world over would topple in a matter of months. That is why a practical approach to this issue is really important, as Shellenberger points out. That is why I think his is the more persuasive, ultimately. He argues for a position of facts and data, and applies logical thinking to reach conclusions that extend from the analysis of the data. The other authors start from a conclusion (renewable are necessary) and work backwards to the current situation, recommending policy changes while ignoring the facts as irrelevant.