Our current theme exposes the predominance of ever more narratives driving policies versus facts. This is another of the series describing deception by the United Nations regarding CO2 levels and natural long-term variations of the climate. Most of its solutions to these imaginary problems are inadequate.
This includes infatuation with so-called renewables, the primary replacement of fossil fuels advocated by the UN and other climate crisis crusaders.
Key components of both wind and solar-driven generation of electricity require regular replacement. Windmill blades and solar panels have limited lifespans, roughly 15-20 years — replacement is rather different than ‘renewable.’
A side point — it should be important to environmentalists, and everyone, that the blades and solar panels are NOT biodegradable, creating an environmental problem that can only increase with time.
The narrative that renewables reduce emissions is only because the counting begins after installation. We need to identify oil utilization and emissions through the full cycle of mining to installation, including operations.
Windmill blades require rare earth materials currently found in China. The first step is mining, followed by transport, refining, and, in turn, further transport for manufacturing. But wait!
The finished product is transported again to tidewater for diesel-fueled shipping to North America and by specially configured truck and trailer rigs to accommodate the incredible length of the blades. But wait, there’s still more!
Visiting a wind farm is an eye-opener, especially the size of the towers and the length of the blades. Installing them is a significant process with huge amounts of oil-consuming concrete both above and below grade. But wait, there’s even more!
Oil is required to lubricate the gearbox and the constant movement of blades and solar panels.
The world needs every source of energy, including the small but growing contribution of renewables. But the assumption that windmills and solar panels reduce emissions disregards all the steps to install and operate them. The math, ultimately depending upon the details of each project, suggests emissions saved generally offset those from the mining process about at the time of replacement (a coincidence).
A further problem regarding the economics of so-called renewables is their intermittency — obviously, windmills don't function when the wind isn't blowing, nor solar when it is dark, raining, snowing, or cloudy. Reliable, efficient, and affordable backup capacity is required, usually fueled by coal or natural gas, to deliver electricity when renewables are down (most of the time).
And unfortunately, renewables are most likely to be unavailable when most needed, such as on very cold days.
This parallel system increases electricity prices in jurisdictions that feature renewables, needed to amortize the additional capital and pay operating costs.
As the location of windmills and solar farms is often purposely remote, requiring additional infrastructure to move electricity to consumers (further investment and additional emissions). These significant capital costs are a component of the economics of renewables, usually overlooked by governments, unlike similar-purposed oil pipelines, which are demonized.
The full cycle economics, as per above, help understand why subsidies are often required to attract capital for wind and solar. The renewables narrative dismisses the optimal source in favour of a non-solution, even though some large projects, usually offshore, are economic.
So, there you have it — an artificial problem, upgraded to a crisis by persistent hyperbole and dishonesty, remedied by proposed (or worse, often imposed) beliefs which provide suboptimal and often financially and/or environmentally damaging outcomes.
This is how politicians rescue us from “catastrophic” outcomes and justify higher taxes, coercive regulation, unnecessary environmental degradation, and reduced freedom of choice.
It is not a coincidence that, even despite subsidies, higher-priced electricity jurisdictions, including California, New York, and others, are the most regulated and taxed in the US. Climate-obsessed Europe (the Mark Carney crowd) is worse.
Playing to human emotions and feelings helps win elections, but long-term economic decline, rejection of the benefits of free markets, and declining trust in government and other institutions are unhealthy. All this describes our country today — its low growth rate, falling productivity, regional divisions, widespread anger and resentment, and loss of hope for so many families.
The United Nations must be very proud of its ‘Special Envoy for Climate Change’ Mark Carney as he continues the Trudeau climate agenda. And he’s just getting started towards the net zero fantasy, the subject of a future column. He attempts to further advance the narrative with the decarbonization of new Canadian-produced oil and punitive carbon costs, making Canada a less competitive supplier.
Funny though, as the much higher emissions per barrel, consumers in central Canada are excluded from similar costs. With no voice in Ottawa, this is more evidence of discrimination against producers on the prairies. Does anyone recall the goal to be a climate leader in any federal political campaign? Or Carney revealing that objective in his campaigns to replace Trudeau for the federal election?
For the last three federal elections, there has been no majority of votes or seats supporting the premise of fewer emissions that would make one of the coldest countries in the world even colder.
