Question

a classmate argues that a fossil fuels are the best energry resources in terms of efficiency so the goverment should not bother developing alternative energry

Answer 1

Your classmate’s claim rests on a narrow definition of “efficiency.” You can respond by pointing out that energy policy should consider multiple metrics (not just one kind of efficiency) and the full social, economic, and environmental costs. Key points you can use:

1. “Efficiency” is ambiguous
- Thermal efficiency (how well a heat engine converts fuel to useful heat or power) is only one measure. Modern combined‑cycle gas plants can reach ~55–60% thermal efficiency, older coal plants are ~33–40%, and internal‑combustion engines (cars/trucks) typically convert a relatively small share of fuel energy into wheel motion (tank‑to‑wheel ~20–30% for typical cars).
- But end‑to‑end (well‑to‑wheel or cradle‑to‑grave) efficiency is what matters for overall energy use and emissions. Electric motors are >90% efficient; when electricity is generated and delivered, EVs often convert a much larger fraction of primary energy to motion than ICE vehicles do.

2. Look at lifecycle and system metrics, not just point efficiency
- Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and total system cost (including balancing, storage, grid upgrades) are now often favorable for wind and solar — in many regions they are among the cheapest sources of new electricity generation.
- Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for some renewables (wind, hydro) is high and improving; fossil fuel EROI has declined in many basins as they move to harder‑to‑extract resources.
- External costs (air pollution, health impacts, climate change) are not reflected in market price for fossil fuels unless governments internalize them. When you include these costs, fossil fuels are far less “efficient” for society.

3. Externalities and market failure justify government action
- Climate change and local air pollution are negative externalities that private markets underprice. Governments intervene (taxes, standards, R&D, incentives) to correct such failures and avoid future damages.
- Governments also act to secure long‑term energy security, reduce price volatility, and support transitions away from finite resources.

4. Risk, long‑term costs, and resilience
- Fossil fuel markets are volatile and geopolitically exposed. Relying heavily on them risks supply shocks and price spikes.
- Climate policy (carbon limits, pricing) and the global transition can strand fossil assets, making it risky to keep investing only in fossil infrastructure.
- Renewables + storage + demand response + transmission can provide reliable low‑carbon electricity; intermittency is a manageable engineering and market problem, not a showstopper.

5. Practical evidence and trends
- Costs for solar PV and wind have fallen dramatically in the past decade; storage costs are falling as well. These trends change the economics quickly.
- Many studies (IEA, IPCC, national labs) show that deep decarbonization requires rapid deployment of low‑carbon technologies and continued R&D — something governments enable.

How to respond in the conversation (short script)
- “If by ‘efficiency’ you mean thermal efficiency of combustion, fossil fuels can be good — but that’s only one measure. We should look at well‑to‑wheel, lifecycle emissions, health impacts, price stability, and total system cost. When you include those, renewables and electrification are often better choices. Also, market prices don’t reflect climate and health damages, which is why the government has to act.”

If you want, I can draft a short handout or slide you can use with citations (IEA, IPCC, Lazard, NREL) to back these points with up‑to‑date numbers.