We need more fossil and nuclear energy.
To recover from the recession as consumers return to the market and businesses accelerate the production of goods and services, we will need reliable forms of energy, particularly those capable of supplying basic power on demand to the consumer. electrical network.
Wind turbines and solar panels do not provide either because, unlike fossil fuels and nuclear power, the energy they produce is intermittent.
The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine and their energy cannot be stored when it is needed at the levels required to fuel a modern, industrialized economy.
What we can do during the post-COVID-19 recovery period to fuel the global economy, while reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions from human-caused climate change, is to use more efficiently fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Replacing coal-fired electricity with natural gas and nuclear power is the most effective way to reduce global emissions, since natural gas burns at half the carbon intensity of coal and nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases.
Although Canada is a world leader in this area – producing less than 9% of our electricity from coal – countries like China and India draw most of their electricity from coal.
In contrast, the use of wind turbines and solar panels to lift the global economy out of the COVID-19 recession will prolong the recession.
Those who advocate such measures are examples of the famous quote from the late computer pioneer John McCarthy of Stanford University that “someone who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.”
The COVID-19 recession is expected to reduce global industrial greenhouse gas emissions by 8% this year, while the United Nations Environment Program forecasts global emissions to fall by 7.6% each year. over the next decade to avoid catastrophic global warming.
In other words, the UN, self-proclaimed green activists and many ignorant politicians are demanding the equivalent of 10 COVID-19 recessions, one for each year, by 2030, to achieve the unrealistic climate goals of Paris agrees.
This would amount to global economic suicide.
Why did this happen?
Because, as Robert Bryce writes in Power Hungry – The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, by which he means nuclear power and natural gas: “Too much of our energy discussions are dominated by flip experts who don’t. do their own research, “a polite way of saying they don’t know what they’re talking about.
What they don’t understand, says Bryce, is the difference between “energy,” which is “the ability to work,” and power, which is “the rate at which work is done.”
The problem with wind turbines and solar energy is that they are inefficient at producing energy.
“We use hydrocarbons – coal, petroleum and natural gas – not because we like them, but because they produce a lot of thermal energy … in the quantities we ask for … It can be fashionable to promote wind, solar and biofuels, but these sources do not work when it comes to power density. “
Finally, Bryce notes that those who promote green energy are generally opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear power, which means, “If you’re anti-carbon and anti-nuclear, you’re pro-blackout. “