Canada's energy problem

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As the political situation in Canada heads for unchartered waters with the Declaration of the Emergency Act and the first time that Canada Flag day is celebrated under siege, it is time to look further ahead. As people and the media are preoccupied with the daily facts of pros and cons of something and anything, it is time to take a serious look at the energy related issues on which the future Canada's wellbeing depends. It makes one dizzy to see all the running around that goes on, skirting the issue of "climate change". This is the new darling of the political establishment in the developed world, embraced with particular fervor by the Canadian government. With zealous words and overreaching promises to curtail carbon emissions, unlikely to ever be achieved, world politics is grappling with ideas on how to reach these imaginary targets. It is interesting to note a recent curious and quite courageous stand taken by the European Union with regard to natural gas and nuclear energy. Perhaps the political gurus in Canada should take note. The European Union, finally and with courage, has admitted the obvious: if decarbonization is the goal, natural gas and nuclear must be a big part of the continent's energy mix. In early January, the European Commission released a statement which said "there is a role for natural gas and nuclear as a means to facilitate the transition towards a predominantly renewable-based future." The move means that gas and nuclear could be classified as "sustainable investments" under certain conditions. This is good news and a tacit acknowledgment by European policymakers of the energy disaster that is now shaking the region. In Canada however the situation is a sad one. I have been making that point for more than a decade. I was a promoter of nuclear energy both in parliament and outside of it. I am in particular favor of the new ideas for recycling the spent nuclear fuel, of which Canada has many tonnes, but all in vain. If decarbonization is the goal, then natural gas and nuclear are the obvious ways forward. Canada has both resources and knowledge in these areas. To be sure, the EU's move didn't please the environmental catastrophists. Robert Habeck, a co-leader of Germany's Green party called the move "greenwashing." Leonore Gewessler, the climate action minister in Austria, said gas and nuclear couldn't be included because they are "harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children." I am quite sure that there will also be many climate catastrophists in Canada who oppose the idea, especially in the present ruling liberal party lead government. It's also worth seeing how big media outlets, mostly left wing, are covering the story. The New York Times summarized the move by saying gas and nuclear would be considered "transitional" sources to be "used to bridge countries' moves away from coal and carbon-emitting power toward clean energy technologies like wind and solar." It continued, saying nuclear would be considered sustainable if the countries can agree on how to handle nuclear waste and that gas-fired power plants would be deemed okay if they "meet certain emissions criteria and replace more polluting fossil fuel plants." As a person of European descent and knowledgeable of European issues, let me state the obvious: Europe cannot and will not move to "a predominantly renewable-based future." The never-ending claims that Europe, or any other region with a large economy, can run solely on "clean energy technologies like wind and solar," are not based on history, math, science or physics. Indeed, Europe, especially Western Europe, is already in the throes of an energy crisis due to its headlong rush to adopt renewables at the expense of traditional thermal power plants. Numerous news outlets have documented the causes of Europe's predicament. Bloomberg ran a story with the headline: "Europe Sleepwalked Into an Energy Crisis that Could Last Years," which said that Europe is "in the midst of an energy transition, shutting down coal-fired electricity plants and increasing its reliance on renewables. Wind and solar are cleaner but sometimes fickle." The right word is unreliable. Reuters reported recently that "In Germany, Europe's largest economy with the continent's highest wind power capacity, combined output from both on and offshore wind farms fell around 16% this year-to-date." Reuters also reported that "Europe's largest wind producers 'Britain, Germany and Denmark harnessed just 14% of installed capacity, in the third quarter of last year, when gas prices hit record highs, compared with an average of 20-26% seen in previous years." The gas resources in the EU come mainly from Russia, which are also a problem in today's political world. I will be curious to find out what the situation is in Canada. This might be a wake up call not to grossly underestimate our own natural gas resources and nuclear energy. The issue is also related to transmission lines connecting wind mills and solar to an integrated grid which are extremely costly and community unfriendly. These expenses and infrastructure can be avoided by Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNR). We have the recent example of the Hydro Quebec transmission line project to New York State cancelled due to public opposition. Turning our attention back to natural gas and nuclear. I am not bragging here, but I must note that I have been a champion of nuclear energy as the best "no regrets" policy for more than a decade. By the way natural gas and nuclear are not "bridge fuels" or "transition" fuels, they are the fuels of the future. Why? They are low or no carbon, have small footprints, are affordable here in Canada, and scalable. Nuclear and natural gas in Canada are the only sectors that have enough momentum and enough capital behind them to make a significant dent in the overall use of classical fossil fuels. I continue to believe that environmental groups should applaud and not oppose the increased use the energy mix of natural gas and nuclear as it is part of the ongoing 'decarbonization' of Canada and the world. Regardless of what you think about carbon dioxide or the climate-change debate, it's apparent that the best way forward is to embrace natural gas and nuclear. To be clear, I am not gloating or bragging here. I am truly pleased that policymakers in Europe are, finally, embracing energy realism. It is about time to have this kind of approach here in Canada instead of destroying our economy and standard of living. Hope you are listening?