I had the opportunity last week to facilitate the Energy Economics module of the Energy Fundamentals for Leaders course at UNB Saint John's Saint John College.
If we base our actions on mythical energy sources or rights of parents on how loud either side can yell, we are in trouble. Belief has become a synonym for fact and truth, when the real truth is that belief is superstition that belongs in Disney fantasy movies and fundamental religions.
Perhaps I am a cynic, but I don't see how we get from here to a carbon neutral society without either using nuclear power and natural gas, or instigating a world financial collapse on a scale that is unimaginable. Perhaps we as a society believe any price is justified if it rids us of carbon emissions.
If we take a step back and look at our realistic options, humanity could be carbon neutral without economic sacrifice, but we would need to throw out many of our beliefs and put our faith in constructive and positive engineering and science, and we would need to admit the third world into our exclusive first world club. If we continue on our present path, we will run out of credit (money) to finance our 'beliefs;' governments will fall, the third world will revolt, political chaos will reign, and climate change will accelerate. History will remember us as the twenty-first century Luddites who tilted at windmills rather than fix our problems with the tools we had available.
New Brunswick is spending millions on unproven nuclear technology when we live next to the Bay of Fundy with tides strong enough to scour rocks from cliffs (I worked at Joggins for a year, I know whereof I speak) and winds strong enough to knock you off your feet. Both of these natural phenomena hold multiple nuclear plants worth of energy. Yet, we choose to study a technology that could lead to catastrophic consequences (re: Chernobyl and Fukushima) if the safeguards fail. Fracking and nuclear both have clear and significant risks. Tidal and wind power have lower risks and are becoming cost competitive with every other type of energy. Why not choose a route that could employ more New Brunswickers?
I challenge you to brush up on nuclear. It is not unproven technology. No power source has produced more safe clean and reliable energy than nuclear. Wind, solar and tides are no where's near comparable in capacity to nuclear. It would take 19 more Kent Hills windfarms to match the capacity of Point LePreau. Tidal, wind and solar cause far more disruption of natural habitats than nuclear due to their large foot prints. Wind turbine manufactures are looking for gov't bailouts. https://x.com/energybants/status/1717519685715964039?s=20
The way the carbon tax is unfolding nationally is a classic case of loss aversion in behavioural economics. It is thought that the pain of losing something through taxes, for example, is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining the equivalent amount in rebates. Mix politics and bad timing into this and you have a policy that's a double DOA.
If we base our actions on mythical energy sources or rights of parents on how loud either side can yell, we are in trouble. Belief has become a synonym for fact and truth, when the real truth is that belief is superstition that belongs in Disney fantasy movies and fundamental religions.
Perhaps I am a cynic, but I don't see how we get from here to a carbon neutral society without either using nuclear power and natural gas, or instigating a world financial collapse on a scale that is unimaginable. Perhaps we as a society believe any price is justified if it rids us of carbon emissions.
If we take a step back and look at our realistic options, humanity could be carbon neutral without economic sacrifice, but we would need to throw out many of our beliefs and put our faith in constructive and positive engineering and science, and we would need to admit the third world into our exclusive first world club. If we continue on our present path, we will run out of credit (money) to finance our 'beliefs;' governments will fall, the third world will revolt, political chaos will reign, and climate change will accelerate. History will remember us as the twenty-first century Luddites who tilted at windmills rather than fix our problems with the tools we had available.
New Brunswick is spending millions on unproven nuclear technology when we live next to the Bay of Fundy with tides strong enough to scour rocks from cliffs (I worked at Joggins for a year, I know whereof I speak) and winds strong enough to knock you off your feet. Both of these natural phenomena hold multiple nuclear plants worth of energy. Yet, we choose to study a technology that could lead to catastrophic consequences (re: Chernobyl and Fukushima) if the safeguards fail. Fracking and nuclear both have clear and significant risks. Tidal and wind power have lower risks and are becoming cost competitive with every other type of energy. Why not choose a route that could employ more New Brunswickers?
I challenge you to brush up on nuclear. It is not unproven technology. No power source has produced more safe clean and reliable energy than nuclear. Wind, solar and tides are no where's near comparable in capacity to nuclear. It would take 19 more Kent Hills windfarms to match the capacity of Point LePreau. Tidal, wind and solar cause far more disruption of natural habitats than nuclear due to their large foot prints. Wind turbine manufactures are looking for gov't bailouts. https://x.com/energybants/status/1717519685715964039?s=20
Even with all the potential the BoF has, tidal is hard https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/tidal-power-turbine-washes-ashore-brier-island-1.7031737
Nothing will produce more skilled jobs in NB than developing SMR's. ARC chose NB because they want to develop a supply chain here.
All developed nations are pledging to increase their nuclear capacity several fold by 2050.
The way the carbon tax is unfolding nationally is a classic case of loss aversion in behavioural economics. It is thought that the pain of losing something through taxes, for example, is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining the equivalent amount in rebates. Mix politics and bad timing into this and you have a policy that's a double DOA.