“Getting rid of fossil fuels to ‘go green’ is naïve, expensive and misleading.”
“President Joe Biden’s Green New Deal is an ‘impossible clusterf***,” says James Delingpole. “You probably knew this already but below are the raw details.”
If the world is to wean itself off fossil fuels and go “carbon neutral” by 2050, here is what might possibly need to be done:
To summarize: to get the world to zero emissions by 2050, our options are to build, commission, and bring on-line either:
• One 2.1 gigawatt (GW, 109 watts) nuclear power plant each and every day until 2050, OR
• 3,000 two-megawatt (MW, 106 watts) wind turbines each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming there’s not one turbine failure for any reason, OR
• 96 square miles (250 square kilometres) of solar panels each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming not one of the panels fails or is destroyed by hail or wind.
The calculations come courtesy of Willis Eschenbach at Watts Up With That? Feel free to check the math yourself.
So if we are going to zero emissions by 2050, we will need to replace about 193 petawatt-hours (1015 watt-hours) of fossil fuel energy per year. (There follows a bunch of mathematical calculations which I’m not including here.)
The cost will, of course, be stupendous:
The nuclear plants alone will cost on the order of US$170 trillion at current prices. And wind or solar plus 75 per cent nuclear will be on the order of US275 trillion, plus decommissioning and disposal costs for wind turbines and solar panels.
But maybe the most stupid thing of all is no-one, apart from the crony capitalist troughers who are going to make like bandits from this scheme, and a few doctrinaire eco-fascist loons, actually wants any of this stuff. It’s being pushed by the Climate Industrial Complex on the basis of claims which turn out to be completely untrue. The “most significant public health issue of our time” line being promoted by White House climate advisor Gina McCarthy, for example, is false:
“Climate change most significant public health issue of our time” says McCarthy.
But is it?
Heart disease kills 33% of all Americans and cancer kills 26%, says Bjorn Lomborg on Twitter.
Heat kills 0.3% and declining.
Cold kills 6.4% and increasing
Yes, at 0.3% heat may be a problem, but it is certainly not our biggest challenge.
And guess which country is going to be the biggest beneficiary of all this green boondoggling…
“China controls 50-70% of lithium, cobalt and polysilicon and is aggressively acquiring other materials to make batteries and solar panels,” says Matt Ridley. “As we move to electric vehicles, we are essentially shifting control of transportation fuels from OPEC to China.”
To quote from Scott Tinker on The Hill, “getting rid of fossil fuels to ‘go green’ is naïve, expensive and misleading.”
See entire article:
Here’s Matt Ridley on Twitter:
"China controls 50-70% of lithium, cobalt and polysilicon and is aggressively acquiring other materials to make batteries and solar panels. As we move to electric vehicles, we are essentially shifting control of transportation fuels from OPEC to China." https://t.co/d76q3KD3b5
— Matt Ridley (@mattwridley) January 27, 2021
Here’s Scott Tinker on The Hill:
Here’s Bjorn Lomborg on Twitter:
Silly: "Climate change most significant public health issue of our time" Biden's Climate Advisor McCarthy
Heart disease kills 33% and cancer 26% of all Americans
Heat kills 0.3% and declining. Cold 6.4% and increasing
Yes, problem. No, 0.3% not biggest challenge
refs below pic.twitter.com/C7rrLZJEI0
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) January 28, 2021