Trudeau Dearest…
Thank you for your invitation for input into the Just Transition initiative to assist the approximately 600,000 Canadian oil and gas workers who will be adversely affected by the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan.
You expressed the hope that “Now, it’s over to the workers and engineers who will build solutions.” As a professional engineer with more than 40 years of experience in the energy sector, I’m offering my contribution to the solution. [bold, links added]
My first piece of advice is: don’t copy the green-energy-transition failure that has transpired in Europe.
Both solar and wind power need 100% active, standby hydrocarbon facilities for the inevitable periods of lack of sunshine and diminished wind (the European energy crisis was initiated by only a 10 percent drop in wind speeds).
Recognize that this duplication of power generation poses a substantial economic burden and that we have extra challenges in Canada.
When temperatures reach minus 30°C windmills must be shut down or they will break, and snow-covered solar panels with only eight hours of weak sunlight are useless.
Batteries for bridging the gap are at least 10 years away, and all batteries lose up to half their capacity during our winters—including those in electric vehicles.
The priority for the electrification of the economy with true minimal environmental footprints should be: 1) nuclear, 2) natural gas, and 3) hydroelectricity.
Secondly, I advise you not to pursue the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada. Green hydrogen as a direct fuel is 10 times more expensive than natural gas, has serious safety concerns, and would require a doubling of our national pipeline infrastructure.
Green hydrogen used in fuel cells is no more energy-efficient than an internal combustion engine, and several times more expensive than gasoline.
My third piece of advice is to stop endorsing creative accounting practices—i.e., greenwashing— to give the appearance of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
One example is the proposed Clean Fuel Standard. Both ethanol-gasoline blends and biodiesel emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as ordinary gasoline for the same distance driven.
They also substantially drive up the cost of food for the world’s poor by diverting farmland from food production to fuel production. Biodiesel also encourages the destruction of jungles for palm oil production.
Stop ignoring the guidelines the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has set to account for methane released from hydroelectric reservoirs and acknowledge that building cement dams creates lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydroelectricity comparable to those of coal.
The Canadian definition of a zero-emissions vehicle is another example of greenwashing, as it includes automobiles that can only travel 27 km at a time (less in the winter) with no tailpipe emissions, and then switch to an internal combustion engine.
And finally, Mr. Trudeau, be honest about the science of climate change. Einstein taught us that “Science can only flourish in an atmosphere of free speech,” but no government in the world has politicized climate science more than Canada.
Stop scaring our children with apocalyptic scenarios that are unsupported by both classical science and the IPCC reports. (The IPCC acknowledges the founding physics theory, the 1896 Arrhenius equation, which places a practical upper limit on the greenhouse gas warming effect of carbon dioxide.)
These, and the last 15,000 years of climate change nullify your declaration of a climate emergency.
If you would really like to help the three percent of Canadian workers who produce 6 percent of our GDP and 14 percent of our exports, you need to take the politics out of science.
Then assess whether Canada’s transition to green energy is warranted and affordable, and on what timescale it can happen.
Also: will it make a difference in the world? Note that not a single signatory of the 2015 Paris Agreement is on track to meet their emissions reductions targets compatible with the 1.5°C global warming target.
If you are interested in learning what classical science really says, please visit www.ronaldbarmby.ca.
Best regards,
Ron Barmby, P. Eng, M. Eng.
Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree, whose 40+ year career in the energy sector has taken him to over 40 countries on five continents. He recently published “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria” (Amazon, Barnes & Noble) to explain in understandable terms the science of how both natural and human-caused global warming work.
Permission to use this content is granted freely to all, provided that any such use is accompanied by attribution and link. —CCD Ed.
Great article Ron , some people can’t handle the truth and unfortunately your sending it to a moron who doesn’t know what science is , he only understands DRAMA .
Scott,
Thanks! You should send it also. That will help get his attention. You can copy the link to this article and email it to: just-transition-equitable@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
That’s the address JT set up for comments.
Ron……
Does the water cycle cool the earth? I say that it does.
So if WV rises and gives off the heat of vapourization to form clouds rain etc.
It cools the earth. Right?
Then how can CO2 do the opposite and cause warming?
Allan,
CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infra-red radiation between the wavelengths of 14 to 16.5 microns. It then re-radiates this heat in all directions (imagine a lightbulb) so some of it comes back to the surface of the earth and warms us up. This is called the greenhouse gas effect, without it we would be as cold as the surface of the moon. The is a limit to the amount of infrared radiation given off by the Earth in those wavelengths, so there is a limit in how much warming CO2 can cause.
Yes, the water cycle cools the Earth by both evaporation and convection currents.
It’s all in my book! Explained in understandable language!
We have lot in Common with Canada both our Countries are being run by total idiots
Your comments are an affirmation on the logic of the Government of Canada. Oil and Gas produced in Canada incur a high carbon dioxide footprint; but if we import oil and gas from a jurisdiction that has no environmental standards then Canada is ahead due to reduced emissions. It makes no sense.
There is a way for Canada to meet and exceed all targets. It’s called mid western independence. They will first have to repay Alberta North of 650B under the International Laws Canada’s Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms conforms to. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-alberta-independence-james-albers
Ron’s articles and logic are always top-rate. as is his book “Sunlight on Climate Change”. Here’s hoping the Lemmings all fall into the sea real soon!
Don;
Thanks for your kind words and buying my book! It encourages me to continue writing.
Nice article Ron! As a 36 year veteran (now retired) of industry, could not agree more. The only solution I see at this stage is the public in the western world is just going to have to experience more PAIN before they realize the “Green Dreamers” are running us off a cliff. Hopes & dreams have no applicability when you face energy imperatives. Unfortunately, looks like a lot of folks are soon to learn this the HARD way…
Thank you Randy! I imagine you have the same reaction when a politicians or the media quote “Scientists say…” They should really ask “Do engineers think this will work?”
All one needs to know of where Canada (and the US behind it) is look at the disaster in Europe. We cannot break from fossil fuels for so many reasons. And if a country wants to actually reduce their “carbon footprint” they would not be going in for the intermittent and very sparce energy production we get from wind and solar (even worse in far north Canada than say Arizona). Instead they are 100% against the one power source that provides 24/7 electricity–nuclear, something I know about as a former reactor operator in the US Navy. This is how you know that they are either totally ignorant fools or lying to us.