There are 430,000 kilometres of power lines in North America, at least according to The Canadian department of Natural Resources there are. If we assume an average width of 30 metres, that's 12,900 square kilometres of land growing nothing that absorbs co2. That's about 20% of New Brunswick and I'm not sure how much greenhouse gas equivalence is there, but it's significant.
So, I guess Bloomberg might have a point, but I somehow doubt it. The point about the grid is that we have too much of it, not too little. If the North Koreans detonate a couple of hydrogen bombs in the stratosphere above us, the price of firewood and candles will be astronomical for a long time.
The disadvantages of huge hydroelectric power sources are few, but our complicated grid system is another story. Hydro power is by definition clean, but disruptive during the building phase. But the hydropower Quebec is selling is already there, so that argument is moot. Beyond the 'clean power' point, hydro is load-following, as are modern Nuclear Reactors. If we build windmills and the wind isn't blowing, or set up solar fields and the sun goes down, we can turn up the power at the dam, or in the Nuclear plant—and on a windy clear afternoon, we can turn down the power to keep from frying the transformers. I am open to an explanation of why we would build a system where the 'reserve' power is cleaner than the 'primary' power, and there's a lot more of it, but that's what we are doing. At least, that's the logic that seems to be the basis for wind and solar.
I recommend Bill Gates' book, "How to avoid a Climate Disaster," about $8 on Amazon. It is the only sensible book I've read on the topic, from a man who says he hates Pollyanna ideas, but is working hard to make them work, and succeeding in most cases. He doesn't pull any punches and both sides of the issue will find his facts offensive...a good sign if you want an honest opinion.
If we continue to ignore facts and concentrate on electric cars and planting trees to solve our climate crisis, we will fail miserably. We will bankrupt ourselves and hand the world economy to China on a platter. Articles like the one you mention here are poison. I have not put the benefits of NYC buying that hydro power into tons of carbon, but I am willing to bet it will be close to what we will get by attempting to talk people into driving electric cars, and it won't cost anyone a cent.
If we continue to condemn and denounce science, engineering, and technology, and rely on fanatical environmentalists, image-centred politicians and opportunistic reporters to fix problems like carbon emissions, we will mess up in a big way. Our grandchildren will have to fix the chaos we create, and I can only hope they will succeed.
There are 430,000 kilometres of power lines in North America, at least according to The Canadian department of Natural Resources there are. If we assume an average width of 30 metres, that's 12,900 square kilometres of land growing nothing that absorbs co2. That's about 20% of New Brunswick and I'm not sure how much greenhouse gas equivalence is there, but it's significant.
So, I guess Bloomberg might have a point, but I somehow doubt it. The point about the grid is that we have too much of it, not too little. If the North Koreans detonate a couple of hydrogen bombs in the stratosphere above us, the price of firewood and candles will be astronomical for a long time.
The disadvantages of huge hydroelectric power sources are few, but our complicated grid system is another story. Hydro power is by definition clean, but disruptive during the building phase. But the hydropower Quebec is selling is already there, so that argument is moot. Beyond the 'clean power' point, hydro is load-following, as are modern Nuclear Reactors. If we build windmills and the wind isn't blowing, or set up solar fields and the sun goes down, we can turn up the power at the dam, or in the Nuclear plant—and on a windy clear afternoon, we can turn down the power to keep from frying the transformers. I am open to an explanation of why we would build a system where the 'reserve' power is cleaner than the 'primary' power, and there's a lot more of it, but that's what we are doing. At least, that's the logic that seems to be the basis for wind and solar.
I recommend Bill Gates' book, "How to avoid a Climate Disaster," about $8 on Amazon. It is the only sensible book I've read on the topic, from a man who says he hates Pollyanna ideas, but is working hard to make them work, and succeeding in most cases. He doesn't pull any punches and both sides of the issue will find his facts offensive...a good sign if you want an honest opinion.
If we continue to ignore facts and concentrate on electric cars and planting trees to solve our climate crisis, we will fail miserably. We will bankrupt ourselves and hand the world economy to China on a platter. Articles like the one you mention here are poison. I have not put the benefits of NYC buying that hydro power into tons of carbon, but I am willing to bet it will be close to what we will get by attempting to talk people into driving electric cars, and it won't cost anyone a cent.
If we continue to condemn and denounce science, engineering, and technology, and rely on fanatical environmentalists, image-centred politicians and opportunistic reporters to fix problems like carbon emissions, we will mess up in a big way. Our grandchildren will have to fix the chaos we create, and I can only hope they will succeed.