If not for Mrs That her and Ronald Reagan taking action much of the planet would be uninhabitable now due to the Ozone Hole caused by CFCs. Of course it cost money. Decarbonising will be much more expensive, but equally necessary. Pretending it is not a problem will not help.
If only the meteorologists had issued wind drought warnings or somebody had bothered to check the reliability of the wind supply before loading the grid with subsidised and mandated wind and solar.
The challenge is for Western nations to escape the "wind drought trap." Germany and Britain may be too deep in the trap, but the US, led by Trump and Chris Wright, will probably do it. They dodged the bullet. One more Democrat term would have been catastrophic.
History has proven a key principle in energy: resources are additive, not subtractive. Each new fuel or technology doesn’t replace its predecessor but simply adds to the system. Take wood, for example. While once the dominant fuel, its role has expanded. We now use more wood than ever before, surpassing the usage recorded in any era when it was the primary energy source. Similarly, the oil and gas sector today consumes more steel than the entire 20th century, a direct result of the vast scale and complexity of modern extraction and infrastructure projects. And this isn’t just a story of oil and gas—it’s a story that reinforces the ongoing role of coal in the energy mix. The more we extract, the more we build, and the deeper the dependencies grow.
But here's the key takeaway: when new resources are added to the energy equation, something important happens: carbon intensity per unit of GDP tends to decrease. This is because new energy sources often come with efficiencies and improvements that allow economies to grow while producing less carbon for each unit of output. So, while the world adds more energy resources, it is also increasingly capable of decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions, even as the total energy system expands.
Living in Oregon, the part about the Pacific Northwest was of particular interest, although the whole article is excellent. The little chart on PNW costs does appears to have an error - the total costs for fossil fuels don't add up - maybe the 'utility profits' weren't as high as posted; or else the total costs are more than $46,587? A correction is needed.
However, the premise is still the same - renewables are completely unfeasible in comparison with gas and nuclear.
Actually, it's much worse than stated - a projection to 2050 is an inadequate measure, because the renewable capital costs will be necessary all over again - 25 years is the expected usable lifetime of renewables, so the whole shebang would need to be replaced! Plus the cost of decommissioning the original equipment.
The gas and nuclear, on the other hand, could last 60, 70, 80, 90, or even 100 years, so a fair comparison would go out at LEAST 60 years.
Trudeau is using the Trump annexation threat as a political opportunity and lifeline to suddenly become Canada’s saviour revising all past Liberal policies. Now it will be OK to produce and ship oil to whoever wants it completely reversing the Liberal policies of the past 9 years. Trudeau and Carney to follow are total frauds. They’re flip flop liars just as bad as Jagmet Singh. Totally unbelievable.
If not for Mrs That her and Ronald Reagan taking action much of the planet would be uninhabitable now due to the Ozone Hole caused by CFCs. Of course it cost money. Decarbonising will be much more expensive, but equally necessary. Pretending it is not a problem will not help.
https://youtu.be/M2JzOlRff08?si=l9W6B9XewedaOgLI
If only the meteorologists had issued wind drought warnings or somebody had bothered to check the reliability of the wind supply before loading the grid with subsidised and mandated wind and solar.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
The challenge is for Western nations to escape the "wind drought trap." Germany and Britain may be too deep in the trap, but the US, led by Trump and Chris Wright, will probably do it. They dodged the bullet. One more Democrat term would have been catastrophic.
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/escaping-the-wind-drought-trap
History has proven a key principle in energy: resources are additive, not subtractive. Each new fuel or technology doesn’t replace its predecessor but simply adds to the system. Take wood, for example. While once the dominant fuel, its role has expanded. We now use more wood than ever before, surpassing the usage recorded in any era when it was the primary energy source. Similarly, the oil and gas sector today consumes more steel than the entire 20th century, a direct result of the vast scale and complexity of modern extraction and infrastructure projects. And this isn’t just a story of oil and gas—it’s a story that reinforces the ongoing role of coal in the energy mix. The more we extract, the more we build, and the deeper the dependencies grow.
But here's the key takeaway: when new resources are added to the energy equation, something important happens: carbon intensity per unit of GDP tends to decrease. This is because new energy sources often come with efficiencies and improvements that allow economies to grow while producing less carbon for each unit of output. So, while the world adds more energy resources, it is also increasingly capable of decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions, even as the total energy system expands.
Wonderful explanation!
Living in Oregon, the part about the Pacific Northwest was of particular interest, although the whole article is excellent. The little chart on PNW costs does appears to have an error - the total costs for fossil fuels don't add up - maybe the 'utility profits' weren't as high as posted; or else the total costs are more than $46,587? A correction is needed.
However, the premise is still the same - renewables are completely unfeasible in comparison with gas and nuclear.
Actually, it's much worse than stated - a projection to 2050 is an inadequate measure, because the renewable capital costs will be necessary all over again - 25 years is the expected usable lifetime of renewables, so the whole shebang would need to be replaced! Plus the cost of decommissioning the original equipment.
The gas and nuclear, on the other hand, could last 60, 70, 80, 90, or even 100 years, so a fair comparison would go out at LEAST 60 years.
I think you'll find the rationale for using renewables had nothing to do with reducing CO2, but rather:
a) enable politicians to virtue signal.
b) transfer huge amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Trudeau is using the Trump annexation threat as a political opportunity and lifeline to suddenly become Canada’s saviour revising all past Liberal policies. Now it will be OK to produce and ship oil to whoever wants it completely reversing the Liberal policies of the past 9 years. Trudeau and Carney to follow are total frauds. They’re flip flop liars just as bad as Jagmet Singh. Totally unbelievable.