The Promised Land
Rod Garland - Author of a "Canadianization" rewrite of the Ten reasons why Boris's green agenda is just plain wrong - Telegraph - Published by SAS Volunteer - November 22, 2020
Link: https://scotlandagainstspin.org/2020/11/ten-reasons-why-boriss-green-agenda-is-just-plain-wrong-telegraph/
The Promised Land
Hi,
I’m with the Government and I’m here to help, whether you want me to or not.
Like
Moses in the Exodus, but not quite with the same flowing beard as depicted in
the classic Exodus movie, our fearless leader has descended from the mountain
with his own set of commandments as part of a green industrial revolution
to tell us what is needed to make our lives better.
At
a cost of tens, or maybe hundreds of billions of dollars, he will have Canadians
driving electric cars powered by wind turbines or solar cells and giving up
their gas boilers to heat their homes to be replaced with ground-source heat
pumps.
He
will transition away from fossil fuels and invent zero-emission ships, trains,
planes and automobiles. This is a vast enterprise with an aim to create hundreds
of thousands of, so called new green jobs. He will likely expect adulation and
applause from his peers and like-minded socialist elites in the United Nations
and other socialist countries.
Ten points to consider
with electrification and a green new deal
First,
such an approach is counter to what is actually needed, sure jobs will be
created to develop the new infrastructure required of a new all-encompassing
electrical grid, but really it’s not jobs in the generation of energy that
counts, but jobs that use it. Providing cheap, reliable energy enables the
private sector itself to create jobs for free as far as the taxpayer is
concerned.
Second,
the presumption is that innovation will magically occur in the next 10
years. But if you could summon up innovations-to-order in any sector you want,
such as electric planes and cheap ways of making hydrogen, just by spending
money, then routine space travel, personal jetpacks and flying cars would
already be a reality. Instead, we have flown and continue to fly in 747s and
this has been the case for more than 50 years.
Third,
there is a misunderstanding and a huge underestimation of the cost. The wind
industry claims that its cost is coming down. But the accounts of wind energy
companies show that both capital and operating expenditures of offshore and
onshore wind farms, that have a very limited lifespan, continues to rise. Wind
firms sign contracts to deliver cheap electricity, but the penalties for
walking away from those contracts, demanding higher prices from a disparate
grid in the future, are minimal and their investors know it. We should note
that where this has been tried in Britain, Australia and Germany, electricity
prices have gone through the roof due to the level of billions of dollars that
electricity-bill payers have spent subsidizing the technology and the owners of
the wind farms; raising them further will kill a lot more than 250,000 jobs.
Fourth,
such policies will not significantly reduce greenhouse emissions in
Canada, let alone those of the rest of the world. It takes a lot more emissions
to make an electric car than a gas-powered car because of the battery. They are
usually made, in whole, or in part with components from China. If the battery
lasts for 150,000kms – which is optimistic – and the electricity with which it
is recharged is made partly with gas, then there is only a miniscule saving in
emissions over the lifetime of the car. There is also the extreme costs
involved in replacing the battery and disposing of it when it no longer
functions.
Fifth,
such reliance on total electrification will make the electricity supply less
reliable. Already across Europe, Australia and in California, all reliant on
their own electricity grids, they have endured extended recurring power-cuts.
These cuts will eventually bring the fleets of electric vehicles to a
standstill. Backup diesel generators could provide some relief but would also
come at a huge maintenance cost as a contingency system and would require the
need to maintain a perpetual secondary traditional energy sector.
.
Sixth, impractical
or untested technologies are inadequate. Ground-source heat pumps can work,
though they deliver low-grade heat and can’t cope on a freezing night, which is
pretty much half of the year in Canada. Air source heat pumps have not proved
so far to be nearly as efficient as promised. They need electricity, make a lot
of noise and take up outside space that is not available in a terrace of houses
or multiplex high rise with a smaller land footprint. Requiring the use of compact
fluorescent light bulbs, when LEDs were coming, proved a costly mistake.
Seventh,
there is a lot of hype for blue or green hydrogen as a replacement energy of
the future in Canada; it isn’t however a form of energy having first to be
made, (using energy), then stored and transported. Making it from natural gas
is expensive and generates emissions, but making it with electricity is vastly
more expensive. Its minuscule molecules can slip through almost any kind of
hole, so the natural gas pipe network is not suitable. Leaks will happen at
hydrogen fueling stations, as one did in Norway in June last year, resulting in
a massive explosion. Perhaps you have heard of the last flight of the “Hindenburg”,
a hydrogen filled rigid airship that crashed and burned in 1937 and marked the
end of an era for hydrogen use in this type of travel due to it being highly
inflammable. ”Oh the Humanity”
Eighth,
this industrial revolution is anything but green. For an example, to generate
all of Britain’s electricity from wind in the North Sea, taking into account
the increased demand for electricity for heat pumps, electric cars and hydrogen
manufacture, would require a wall of turbines 20 miles wide stretching from the
south-east tip of England to the north-east tip of Scotland, a distance of
about 1000kms The effect on migratory birds would be disastrous. Imagine this
now in Canada where the winds are less predictable especially inland and the
distances between consumer cities much greater.
Ninth,
Does Canada’s desire to be FIRST at something really make any sense with this?
No matter what you are told, even by the self-administering signatories to the
Paris Accord, the rest of the world are NOT on board. China has announced that its use of
fossil fuels will not even peak till 2030. China has more coal-fired power
now under development than the entire coal power capacity of the United States.
It will use coal to make the turbines and cars and batteries we use, laughing
all the way to the bank. The world still generates 93% of its energy from
CO2-emitting combustion (coal, oil, gas and wood) and just 1.4% from wind and
solar.
Tenth,
while climate change is a real issue and has been a reality over the 4 billion
year history of the planet are we not truly naïve to think that humans have the
knowledge and technology to be able to successfully control global
temperatures, sea levels and affect results in the time spans suggested, as in
within decades. The threat of impending extinction if these folk’s
viewpoint isn’t accepted without question is flat out absurd. There is no
confirmed extinction of a species due to climate change, species have however
evolved. Nor has global warming resulted in more or fiercer storms or droughts.
The extremists’ claims otherwise simply ignore the scientific evidence.
Emissions have so far increased crop yields and made all ecosystems greener,
this is a good news story.
Yes,
we would be better off funding research to bring down the cost of carbon
capture, nuclear power and fusion. Nuclear is the one form of carbon-free
energy that can generate reliable power from a tiny footprint of land. The
reason nuclear electricity costs so much today is because we have made
innovation in nuclear design all but impossible by devising a byzantine
regulatory process of immense cost. Let’s reform that. Small, modular
molten-salt reactors are an innovation within reach, unlike electric planes.
Governments
are here to help alright, but not help you or me. They call being in politics a
call to service, but the majority seem to service their own hunger for power
and money first and care very little for the lot of the common man and then
only as a means to get re-elected. I’m pretty certain it won’t be a politician
of any stripe leading us to the “promised land”.
Comments
Post a Comment