Across the globe, over $5T is spent annually on energy. That's quite a chunk of change that's being spent to produce carbon dioxide emissions along with their negative effects on the atmosphere and global temperatures...that is, if one is to believe those who worship at the altar of environmentalism.
Unfortunately, they're ignoring basic physics.
According to Robert Bryce in Bloomberg News, four numbers explain why transitioning to "green" energy sources will be protracted and costly:
32: The percentage growth in carbon dioxide emissions that has
occurred globally since 2002, an increase of 8.4B tons in 10 years.
"Omigosh! This portends the end of life on Earth as we know it!" those who worship at the altar of environmentalism cry out.
Sorry. Most of that increase in carbon dioxide emissions has taken place in the United States. However,the inconvenient truth is that carbon dioxide emissions were 8% lower in the USA in 2012 than in 2002. This outcome is due, in large part, to the increase in shale gas production, which has reduced coal use.
1. The power density of wind in watts/square meter. This paltry power
density means that even more enormous tracts of land must be set
aside to make wind energy viable.
"Why not do this in national parks? Let the government reap the profits to pay off the massive $17T national debt?" The Motley Monk asks.
"Omigosh! No way, Jose! That would destroy nature's pristine beauty. We simply can't have that, can we?" those who worship at the altar of environmentalism protest.
30. This represents global energy use, the output of about 30 Saudi
So, where does the rest of the globe's energy come from? 10 from oil, 9 from coal, 7 from natural gas, 2 from hydro and 1-1/2 from nuclear power.
1/2. The amount of energy the world gets from all renewable sources,
not counting hydropower.
Do the math: 50 times as much energy is produced by all other sources--coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and hydropower--as is generated from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass sources.
Hence a question:
If the answer is affirmative, those who worship at the altar of environmentalism cannot deny that the price of those alternative sources must be competitive with coal, if their cherished vision is to be achieved. In particular: those sources must be able to be deployed across the globe fairly rapidly, produce fewer carbon emissions than coal, and not take up too much land.
According to Bryce, there are two answers: Natural gas and nuclear power.
2. In The Motley Monk's mind, that's the fifth important number
Let the discussion begin...
To read Robert Bryce's article in Bloomberg News, click on the following link:
"Four Numbers Say Wind and Solar Can't Save Climate"