Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 701 to 800 of 890

Thread: Provincial Climate Change Plan

  1. #701

    Default

    ^Yes, but a lot of people did not want to pay the carbon tax in the first place. That is a lot of people's point.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  2. #702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Yes, but a lot of people did not want to pay the carbon tax in the first place. That is a lot of people's point.
    Also, a lot of people don't want climate change either. If you get the free light bulbs and use them, then you pay less of the carbon tax and less energy is used - sort of a small win win. It's a relatively easy change to make and making it free gives some incentive for people on limited budgets or those penny pinchers who can't bring themselves to spend more for energy efficient bulbs.

  3. #703

    Default

    ^They're not 'free' light bulbs. Nothing any level of governments give us is 'free'. Everything we 'get' through the government comes from income taxes, property taxes, PST, GST, tariffs, fees, carbon tax, user fees etc or whatever means they use to extract money from us.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  4. #704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^They're not 'free' light bulbs. Nothing any level of governments give us is 'free'. Everything we 'get' through the government comes from income taxes, property taxes, PST, GST, tariffs, fees, carbon tax, user fees etc or whatever means they use to extract money from us.
    Yes, you have a point. There are a lots of things we say are free and are technically not. In the past, it doesn't cost anything to those who polluted the air or the water either so technically that was "free" too, but the real cost was borne by society as a whole not directly by the individuals who did it.

  5. #705

    Default

    Interesting...

    Pictures: Oil Potential and Animal Habitat in the Monterey Shale

    Except:
    The U.S. Energy Information Administration says the Monterey could hold as much as 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or about two-thirds of all recoverable shale oil resources in the United States.

    ...
    And even state leaders who have backed a clean energy future are mindful that an oil-fueled economic boom could add millions of jobs over the next decade or two. "We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going," California Governor Jerry Brown said during a press conference last month. "That's the balance that's required." (See related story:


    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nimal-habitat/
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2017 at 07:45 PM.

  6. #706

    Default

    Why a smart energy policy can include coal - Power Engineering International
    Aug 2016

    Excerpt:

    ...The corollary is even more important - that over-reliance on a single technology or fuel can have devastating impact. This can be seen today in Japan's power industry after the Fukushisma nuclear accident, in oil exporting countries with oil prices more than half the value they were a year ago, and in the US when heavy frame gas turbines were...
    ...
    All of these systems are designed with flexibility in mind to endure continued tightening US environmental regulations and changes in fuel quality over the long life of the Longview energy complex.

    The Longview energy complex sets a new level of best-class performance for today's modern coal power solutions. It demonstrates a solution for safe, secure, reliable and affordable coal power with minimal environmental impact.

    Today, coal produces about 40 per cent of the world's electricity, the largest share from any source. In 30 years from now, nearly all long-term forecasts show that coal will still produce about one-third of the world's electricity. At the global level, this supports the smart strategy of keeping a diverse portfolio of generating options.

    In order to maintain this level of coal, forecasters estimate that between 1500 GW and 2000 GW of new coal plants will be built over the next 30 years to meet growing electricity demand and to replace aging coal plants.


    http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...lude-coal.html




    Tokyo opts for large-scale coal power roll-out

    Jan 31, 2017

    Excerpt:

    The Japanese government is set to build up to 45 new high energy, low emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants in a bid to diversify its power supply.

    Following Fukushima, the country had favoured gas-fired power, with liquefied natural gas being imported, but has opted for coal, as gas has risen in price.


    The coal will to be used in the plants will be imported also from Australia and the island nation is heavily dependent on imports for its electricity security.

    Tom O'Sullivan, a Tokyo based energy consultant with Mathyos Global Advisory, told ABC Online, "So it's trying to diversify its fuel sources and it doesn't want to be too reliant on any one market."

    http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...-roll-out.html
    Last edited by KC; 31-01-2017 at 08:25 AM.

  7. #707
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    Keephills power plants for example generates ~800 MW of power. What exactly will the AG use to replace this with, 5,000 wind turbines across the Province? The coal industry employs about 10,000 people in Alberta.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...g-process.aspx

    Ok so 2030 is a long way off and anything can happen between then and now. Ten thousand direct jobs lost and many more indirect jobs is a big hit to the economy.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  8. #708

    Default

    Most of the baseload generation that's powered by coal currently is going to transition to natural gas before 2030. Coal simply isn't economically viable any longer.

    In addition to this shift, the move to a capacity market along with other changes will allow renewables to be more economical, thereby increasing their utilization in the mix.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  9. #709
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    ^ Translation: 10,000 wind turbines scattered about the Province.

    See KC's post above why coal still makes sense.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  10. #710
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    ^What part of 'natural gas' doesn't make sense to you?

  11. #711
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  12. #712

    Default

    I didn't know that natural gas extraction, pipelines and power plants run unstaffed and maintenance free.

    Good to know.
    There can only be one.

  13. #713

    Default

    The legislation & regulatory regime that made coal uneconomic is a legacy of the PCs that the NDP inherited, but that's conveniently forgotten as well.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  14. #714
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.

  15. #715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?

    What portion of those jobs is related to electricity production?

    Also, will some mines switch their production to export once the coal plants are shut down?

  16. #716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.
    Yeah, its no big deal 10,000 jobs being accelerated out of existing, including the small towns that depend on them - lets do that for laughs and giggles while other places like China and Japan create jobs like these. I think coal has its issues, and perhaps needed to go, but not to be replaced 25% by uneconomical green projects, which won't be sustainable jobs at all.

  17. #717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^What part of 'natural gas' doesn't make sense to you?
    Natural gas is great but it can suffer from price volatility. People don't like price volatility. Utilities get into knee-jerk management behaviour too when prices bounce around.

    Shale production may make a difference there though by adding stability, I don't know.

    Natural gas is also a stop gap because it pumps out CO2 as well. What? Only 30% less than coal or something to that degree.

    Coal is cheap but dirty - but can be cleaned up at a cost. The question should be, can it be cleaned up to the same degree that gas can or will be cleaned up and still produce electricity cheaper than that future gas generation. That's a near impossible forecast because of the volatility of gas prices. That said, cleaner coal might play a useful role in reducing overall electricity price volatility.

    Solar and wind should be very price stable but suffering somewhat from natural conditions. If solar pricing keeps coming down it should prove fantastic for Alberta - during certain times of the day and otherwise if storage improves.

    I think the bottom line is that a diversified portfolio may be the best route and that diversification maybe should include some coal based power - but only if it can be cleaned up somewhat and used judiciously or somehow as a backstop. i think though that the province is determined to end all coal based production no matter what happens to "the science" / technology.
    Last edited by KC; 31-01-2017 at 12:14 PM.

  18. #718
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    ^More like 50% less CO2 on an energy content basis, and 60% less when you account for increased thermal efficiency in a gas combined cycle powerplant compared to coal.

  19. #719

    Default

    It's the cost of "cleaning up coal" that makes it economically unviable compared to natural gas.

    Capital Power is transitioning Genesee off of coal & the fuel they currently burn comes from literally across the road from the plant. It doesn't get much cheaper for input costs than that.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  20. #720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.
    Yeah, its no big deal 10,000 jobs being accelerated out of existing, including the small towns that depend on them - lets do that for laughs and giggles while other places like China and Japan create jobs like these. I think coal has its issues, and perhaps needed to go, but not to be replaced 25% by uneconomical green projects, which won't be sustainable jobs at all.
    I don't know who here did grade school in Alberta, but there is a class known as Social Studies. We covered this thing known as the industrial revolution in grade9 that goes over what you are referring to. The cottage industry took a huge hit as a result and proponents of the old system lamented the loss of their jobs to machines. That's what happens - industries evolve and change. People unfortunately lose their jobs. People will move in search of work - just like many moved to Alberta during our boom times. Nothing ever stays the same

  21. #721

    Default



    American figures, but the point stands. Even when coal disappears there's plenty of jobs to be had in the new status quo & the transition to it.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  22. #722

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.
    Yeah, its no big deal 10,000 jobs being accelerated out of existing, including the small towns that depend on them - lets do that for laughs and giggles while other places like China and Japan create jobs like these. I think coal has its issues, and perhaps needed to go, but not to be replaced 25% by uneconomical green projects, which won't be sustainable jobs at all.
    I don't know who here did grade school in Alberta, but there is a class known as Social Studies. We covered this thing known as the industrial revolution in grade9 that goes over what you are referring to. The cottage industry took a huge hit as a result and proponents of the old system lamented the loss of their jobs to machines. That's what happens - industries evolve and change. People unfortunately lose their jobs. People will move in search of work - just like many moved to Alberta during our boom times. Nothing ever stays the same
    "It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours." - Harry Truman

    Sometimes people see things in long term trends, macro issues, averages (not medians) and other generalizable terms. Other times or other people see things in personal, direct individual and present terms. I think its a good habit to try to jump back and forth between the two perspectives.

    bolding is mine:

    A Tract on Monetary Reform", pg. 80

    "Now "in the long run" this is probably true.If, after the American Civil War, that American dollar had been stabilized and defined by law at 10 per cent below its present value, it would be safe to assume that n and p would now be just 10 per cent greater than they actually are and that the present values of k, r, and k' would be entirely unaffected. But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean will be flat again." - Keynes

  23. #723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post


    American figures, but the point stands. Even when coal disappears there's plenty of jobs to be had in the new status quo & the transition to it.
    Lets see what those numbers look like in a year or two without Obama's government subsidies.

  24. #724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    I don't know who here did grade school in Alberta, but there is a class known as Social Studies. We covered this thing known as the industrial revolution in grade9 that goes over what you are referring to.
    The industrial revolution occurred not from government subsidies, or environmental activism, but rather, from economic reality from a newly matured and cost effective technology. As of today there is no technology that can provide the lifestyles we have, as well as oil and gas. As of today, global oil and gas consumption is projected to rise for at least another 30 years. Human increase in lifespan is directly correlated with the discovery of rock oil - if we phased it out tomorrow we would go back to a much poorer / more basic lifestyle. Certainly not this one by this green superstar who consumes more than 100 times of carbon than what the average person does:



    I can live with us moving off coal in a responsible paced way, not a government subsidized way (although I caution prices could flip back on natural gas making us deeply regret that move - the cycle has happened before), but I struggle to understand why want to waste money subsidizing technologies that can't support themselves yet (solar / wind), and likely won't be able to in Alberta for at least another couple of decades.
    Last edited by moahunter; 31-01-2017 at 02:22 PM.

  25. #725

    Default

    I always loved James Burke's Connections and The Day the Universe Changed for his detailed extensive looks at critical but unusual historical connections:

    "A segment of the PBS broadcast of James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed. This segment was broadcast as Credit Where It's Due. "In 18th century England, the industrial revolution got its impetus from growing wealth and industrious religious Dissenters, barred form all activities but trade. These Dissenters, using innovations in business and credit, created a new industrial society, based chiefly on the steam engine, a Dissenter invention. We see the growth of urbanization, the factory system, an industrial working class, and the exploitation of the planet. Notes: Written and produced by James Burke. Music by Cor Davis. Edited by David Pygram. Researchers: Betinna Lerner, Penelope Fairfax and Joy Hornsby."

    http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...6L03IndRev.htm

    bolding above was mine


    If we suddenly stopped using oil we're fortunate enough now to have various alternative sources of energy. The change over though would be enormously costly financially and in lives lost and economies destroyed. Possibly like surviving a nuclear war except without the loss of expertise and territory. Though wars would certainly break out in the scramble for needed resources.


    On superstars - yes - incredibly wasteful lifestyles. We're incredibly wasteful as average citizens in the western world, but I find it hard to imagine just how much 'excessive' consumption goes on at the highest socio-economic levels, in both the western world and in emerging and third world nations alike.

    Some of the kids I went to school with had parents that owned planes, houses in Banff, cabins outside Jasper, properties in the US, etc. and I thought they had it 'good'. In retrospect, they were living modestly. Today, the world's wealthiest, those that consume their non-invested wealth, have hundreds of times the assets - often tying up resources (cars, homes, etc.) or consuming resources (jet set lifestyles or multiple empty houses being air conditioned or whatever).

    Then there's Warren Buffett:
    Three Ways Warren Buffett Is Not A Typical Billionaire
    JAN 31, 2017
    1. His home: ...He still lives in the five-bedroom Nebraska home he purchased in 1958 for $31,500 (about $262,000 in today’s dollars)...
    2. His car:
    3. His diet:

    “In my entire lifetime everything that I spend will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I make,” Buffett explains in the documentary. “The other 99%-plus will go to others because it has no utility to me, so it’s silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It’s doing me no good.”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewi.../#67ab0ce03610

    Last edited by KC; 31-01-2017 at 02:52 PM.

  26. #726

    Default

    NOVA: Search for the Super-Battery, Feb. 1, 9pm MST

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/super-battery.html
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  27. #727
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    They're heavily incentivizing energy efficient behaviour. I don't see the issue with it. Without it people would continue over consuming without any regard for the planet. It's a simple mentality of, "if I can afford it then I don't care how much energy I use." So the government solution is to make over consuming even more unaffordable.

  28. #728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mla View Post
    They're heavily incentivizing energy efficient behaviour. I don't see the issue with it. Without it people would continue over consuming without any regard for the planet. It's a simple mentality of, "if I can afford it then I don't care how much energy I use." So the government solution is to make over consuming even more unaffordable.
    That's good. Sin taxes work on the same principle.

    In addition I think adding wind and solar serves to diversify our production.

  29. #729
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    On batteries: While there is room for improvement for batteries for portable devices like phones and cars, the solution for fixed, utility-scale storage has likely already been invented - the sodium-sulfur battery.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium...sulfur_battery

    Any technology that uses even moderately rare materials (like lead or lithium) will not scale to the level needed to store enough electricity to provide reliable power from renewable sources alone. A sodium-sulfur battery uses sodium (the most abundant metal ion in the ocean) and sulfur (something that is being turned into mountains at Syncrude because it is not worth shipping) as electrode materials, and aluminum oxide (mined on hundred million tonne scale for aluminum production) for the electrolyte.

    To illustrate the scale, supplying Alberta's ~10 GW demand for 12 hours would require batteries containing approximately 50,000 tonnes of sodium and 150,000 tonnes of sulfur. Multiply by 14 for a week of cloudy weather. Add a lot more for any seasonal storage. Now scale to the rest of the world.

  30. #730
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.
    What about the impact of indirect job losses? We don't know what the outcome of that would be like on communities. In some areas of this Province coal jobs are the life blood of the community, like in Hana and Hinton, to name a few.

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...055#post810055
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  31. #731
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?

    What portion of those jobs is related to electricity production?

    Also, will some mines switch their production to export once the coal plants are shut down?
    Probably none of them.

    Sure lets play the old shell game give our problem to someone else and now they've got the problem.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  32. #732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.
    What about the impact of indirect job losses? We don't know what the outcome of that would be like on communities. In some areas of this Province coal jobs are the life blood of the community, like in Hana and Hinton, to name a few.

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...055#post810055
    Hanna is far less dependant on coal as it's also the local town for a fairly big farming area, and the plant there could be converted to natural gas just as easily as it could be upgraded to clean coal when it reaches end of life - and the area has decent solar and wind potential, so if the market goes hard renewable they should be OK.

    The foothills coal around Hinton and Grand Cache is the steelmaking coal that isn't being phased out. It's mostly for export, and it won't be affected.
    There can only be one.

  33. #733
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Clean coal will be back, once the NDP are kicked out.

  34. #734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Clean coal will be back, once the NDP are kicked out.
    Clean coal is a fantasy in the diseased minds of self-polluted degenerates.

  35. #735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Clean coal will be back, once the NDP are kicked out.
    Except it was the PCs who implemented the legislation a decade ago that made coal plants uneconomic & even if the Albertan regressive right unifies, takes over & scraps the whole legislation there's equivalent federal legislation that'll take effect restoring the new status quo.

    Coal-fired power generation has had its day but it's over & it's never coming back.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  36. #736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Clean coal will be back, once the NDP are kicked out.
    I would like to know what this 'clean coal' is everyone keeps talking about. Inherently it can't be clean. Even if you somehow capture all emissions, there are so many externalities that are harmful. We can certainly make it cleaner, but we should still look to other energy options.

    And anyways, no coal producers is going to invest in carbon scrubbers and capture unless there is some government program to incentivize it, or if the government forces them to, which I'm sure is an idea you wouldn't like very much.

  37. #737
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Google is your friend, clean coal is on there

  38. #738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    I would like to know what this 'clean coal' is everyone keeps talking about. Inherently it can't be clean. Even if you somehow capture all emissions, there are so many externalities that are harmful. We can certainly make it cleaner, but we should still look to other energy options..
    You mean, like how electric cars can't be clean / can actually result in more carbon emissions than regular vehicle (metal mining, etc.)?

    https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas...t-green-think/

    Or how farming isn't clean (massive emissions from meat consumption)?

    Yeah - I guess so, but the alternative that could perhaps create a "clean" lifestyle, of returning to the stone age, doesn't work that well in this climate for most of us who didn't grow up in a tipi on the prairies, given all the buffalo have now gone...
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-02-2017 at 01:00 PM.

  39. #739
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I never said it didn't. What part of losing about 10,000 jobs makes sense to you?
    Jobs come and go. There may be 20,000 jobs created in some other sector. Who knows.
    What about the impact of indirect job losses? We don't know what the outcome of that would be like on communities. In some areas of this Province coal jobs are the life blood of the community, like in Hana and Hinton, to name a few.

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...055#post810055
    Indirect jobs may also be generated by new sectors. Indirect jobs can be both lost and gained. We do have to try to help those communities that have no other options, though.

  40. #740

    Default Oil sands emissions to be less than 23 hours of China

    iEA economist explaining why carbon taxes and or cap and trade are not necessary (why most places in world aren't doing them I guess), and how canadas emissions will grow to be less than one day per year of China's:

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...hief-economist
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-02-2017 at 07:24 AM.

  41. #741

    Default

    ^What do you get when you have champagne socialists and tax and spend liberals running the country. Answer: An unnecessary carbon tax.
    Of course carbon tax sounds better than PST. Not to worry though, the budget will balance itself(ie).
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  42. #742
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,442

    Default

    I can't remember when and where but I remember reading that Chinas pollution is 500 times Canadas. How could Canada be 1.5% of the world then? One Chinese city pollutes more than all of Canada and that's just one country. I think they exaggerate just to get the money out of us. We take it in hook line and sinker too.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 04-02-2017 at 08:59 PM.

  43. #743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    iEA economist explaining why carbon taxes and or cap and trade are not necessary (why most places in world aren't doing them I guess), and how canadas emissions will grow to be less than one day per year of China's:

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...hief-economist
    Did you even read it? It's from 2014, and it's not really about emissions.

    But that 23 hours of china's emissions is only the emissions of additional oilsands production. Existing production also create emissions. so do other Canadian industries. So does our domestic consumption.

    For us to emit less than china per capita we can only emit about 10 days worth of china's emissions, cause there's like 38 times as many of them as there are of us.
    There can only be one.

  44. #744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I can't remember when and where but I remember reading that Chinas pollution is 500 times Canadas. How could Canada be 1.5% of the world then? One Chinese city pollutes more than all of Canada and that's just one country. I think they exaggerate just to get the money out of us. We take it in hook line and sinker too.
    Maybe in sulfer oxides or something. smoggy-type pollution, not CO2.

    They emit almost 20x as much as Canada's, but with almost 40x as many people in china, canadians each emit twice what chinese do.

    I'm not sure how that works out to mean that they are the ones that need to cut.
    There can only be one.

  45. #745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    For us to emit less than china per capita
    Why does per capita matter? Our emissions are inconsequential. Even if we tripled or quadrupled our per capita emissions it would be nominal / meaningless impact on climate, even if you believe in climate change. Chretien and Haper, even Obama, and 90% of the worlds leaders today, had / have enough brains to just play lip service and not actually do anything to harm the standard of living of their populations.

  46. #746

    Default

    So, if Canada were annexed by the US would our emissions suddenly matter more, since the new "we" would be the world's second biggest emitter?

    That's nonsense, and it's just an excuse to avoid doing anything.

    Nations only matter in this issue so far as they are the ones with the power to change the rules within their borders.
    The real emitters are individuals. And as individuals we use twice as much as Chinese do. So we need to use less more than they need to use less.
    There can only be one.

  47. #747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The real emitters are individuals. And as individuals we use twice as much as Chinese do. So we need to use less more than they need to use less.
    Until the technology becomes economic, the choice is they use more and have lifestyles like ours (why they are building hundreds of coal power plants), or we use less, and have lifestyles like theirs. Emissions will keep going up until the technology comes in time with or without this pointless carbon tax.

  48. #748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The real emitters are individuals. And as individuals we use twice as much as Chinese do. So we need to use less more than they need to use less.
    Until the technology becomes economic, the choice is they use more and have lifestyles like ours (why they are building hundreds of coal power plants), or we use less, and have lifestyles like theirs. Emissions will keep going up until the technology comes in time with or without this pointless carbon tax.
    "The Technology" is economic now, at least to get our emissions down to near theirs with negligible real change in standard of living. We've got all these great technologies like bicycles and sweaters and sub-compact automobiles and houses that aren't 3,000sf but we don't use them like we should because the old rules mean that we don't pay for the consequences of our actions.

    The carbon tax has a point, just in case you're actually willing to hear it.

    The point is to shift the balance point, and make more of those technologies economic in more situations
    There can only be one.

  49. #749
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    So, if Canada were annexed by the US would our emissions suddenly matter more, since the new "we" would be the world's second biggest emitter?

    That's nonsense, and it's just an excuse to avoid doing anything.

    Nations only matter in this issue so far as they are the ones with the power to change the rules within their borders.
    The real emitters are individuals. And as individuals we use twice as much as Chinese do. So we need to use less more than they need to use less.
    Yes, well said.

    If every country says it's too small a percentage of total emissions to do anything, then emissions will never come down. No one would reduce anything. As such all countries need to do their part, in proportion to total emissions. This is exactly what Canada is doing.

  50. #750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I can't remember when and where but I remember reading that Chinas pollution is 500 times Canadas. How could Canada be 1.5% of the world then? One Chinese city pollutes more than all of Canada and that's just one country. I think they exaggerate just to get the money out of us. We take it in hook line and sinker too.
    China is also spending about 500x more than Canada to clean up. China is walking the walk. The US just tweets incomprehensible blabber while repealing environmental protections as fast as they can. Coming soon to a US river near you: mercury!
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  51. #751
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    So, if Canada were annexed by the US would our emissions suddenly matter more, since the new "we" would be the world's second biggest emitter?

    That's nonsense, and it's just an excuse to avoid doing anything.

    Nations only matter in this issue so far as they are the ones with the power to change the rules within their borders.
    The real emitters are individuals. And as individuals we use twice as much as Chinese do. So we need to use less more than they need to use less.
    Yes, well said.

    If every country says it's too small a percentage of total emissions to do anything, then emissions will never come down. No one would reduce anything. As such all countries need to do their part, in proportion to total emissions. This is exactly what Canada is doing.
    I support the carbon tax for two reasons. One is a moral reason and the other is prudence. For the moral reason I think it's noble that Canada is trying to lead by example. Living in North America, we often like to think of ourselves as leaders and think of our countries as more developed and more free etc. etc. (not necessarily my opinion, just trying to reflect typical North American attitude). So I find it funny that when it comes to pioneering new technology the right wing suddenly wants other countries to do it first... what ever happened to North America leading by example?

    Which leads to my second point, prudence. Wouldn't it be fiscally responsible of us if we could get ahead of other countries in research and development of more efficient green technologies? That could help go a long way to diversifying our economy in the long run, no?

  52. #752

    Default A green leap forwad in China? What a load of biomas

    Quote Originally Posted by Mla View Post
    Which leads to my second point, prudence. Wouldn't it be fiscally responsible of us if we could get ahead of other countries in research and development of more efficient green technologies? That could help go a long way to diversifying our economy in the long run, no?
    If that's the goal (and I think its a dangerous one because governments are very good at spending money which ends up being wasted on expensive boardrooms and similar, but very bad at recovering it), then give a direct subsidy. No carbon tax needed. I expect our experience will be like china's though:

    The focus on China’s big renewable-energy investment diverts attention away from actions that are less in keeping with its green image. China installed record numbers of coal plants in 2015 and the first half of 2016, according to the International Energy Agency. For all of the talk about China’s huge investments in wind and solar energy, the agency found that in 2014, the latest year for which data are available, 66% of Chinese energy needs were met by coal power. Wind energy supplied 0.4%. Wind will grow, but coal will remain a dominant energy source for China in the decades to come.

    ...

    Living up to the Paris climate promise of reducing carbon dioxide per economic unit will likely cost at least $200 billion or more a year in lost production, according to my analysis using Asian economic models. China’s bold talk notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether future leaders will tolerate such a substantial economic loss.

    Judged on today’s reality—and not simply rhetoric—China is less of a green success, and more of a warning tale. Switching to green energy before it is competitive is hard. Very hard.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-green...***-1486081133

    As to the "leading by example", I think that's a bit silly. Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't going to implement a carbon tax anytime just because we do it. Nobody in the rest of the world gives a &$R^%$* what Canada is doing, nor should the given our emissions are inconsequential.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-02-2017 at 01:09 PM. Reason: refined quote

  53. #753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    So, if Canada were annexed by the US would our emissions suddenly matter more, since the new "we" would be the world's second biggest emitter?

    That's nonsense, and it's just an excuse to avoid doing anything.

    Nations only matter in this issue so far as they are the ones with the power to change the rules within their borders.
    The real emitters are individuals. And as individuals we use twice as much as Chinese do. So we need to use less more than they need to use less.
    It's a very mute point in regards to Canada being annexed by the U.S.A. Carbon emissions don't magically stop at the 49th. parallel then turn around and blow back over the U.S. American air quality is also Canada's air quality as we are the same continent. There are about 4 provinces that have some kind of carbon tax/capture tax implemented in Canada. It appears these 4 provinces are paying the lions share of whatever carbon emissions are floating around over the atmosphere of North American. Four provinces paying in while other provinces and U.S. States do nothing.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  54. #754

    Default

    ^Cool thing about the carbon tax is that we're paying ourselves.

    Not a cap- and-trade scheme like Ontario bought into where they could be paying low-emitters elsewhere.
    There can only be one.

  55. #755

    Default

    ^^^Moa, You've often used the argument that we shouldn't tax carbon because it could make our industries less competitive with places that don't.

    I believe that the carbon tax is low enough that the effect will be small, but by instituting our carbon tax we help remove the "competitiveness" argument that maybe holding up others.
    There can only be one.

  56. #756

    Default

    ^Yes, it's a wonderful system. Government takes our money then takes on the expense of hiring people to administer the money and use of the money then puts up smoke and mirrors then magically we get some of our money back. Pfft. Meanwhile other provinces do nothing.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  57. #757

    Default

    I'm not particularly thrilled about other provinces doing nothing either.
    There can only be one.

  58. #758
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    I am tired of the "bystander effect" that the world has taken on climate change. If everyone waited until someone else goes first then nothing will ever get done.

  59. #759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mla View Post
    I am tired of the "bystander effect" that the world has taken on climate change. If everyone waited until someone else goes first then nothing will ever get done.
    Prevention just isn't our thing.

  60. #760
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    Well, we're doing our bit. The last Enmax report on consumption at our house (1975 sq. ft.).

    Your home: 283 kWh
    Efficient homes:350 kWh
    Similar homes: 568 kWh

    19% less that efficient homes.

    Proud of that.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  61. #761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Well, we're doing our bit. The last Enmax report on consumption at our house (1975 sq. ft.).

    Your home: 283 kWh
    Efficient homes:350 kWh
    Similar homes: 568 kWh

    19% less that efficient homes.

    Proud of that.
    I bet that carbon tax is really hitting you hard being all efficient like that
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  62. #762
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,588

    Default

    Clark says NDP has cost Alberta's balancing pool more than $1B — in 9 months

    'The level of mismanagement of the electricity file is mind-blowing,' Alberta Party Leader says.
    Share on Facebook


    Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark's read of the latest balancing pool interim report is that mismanagement has cost the pool $1.4 billion — and he's blaming the NDP government.
    “This massive loss is a direct result of the NDP’s lack of understanding of the impact of their policy decisions,” Clark said, in a release.


    “The losses can be directly tied to the [NDP] decision to increase the carbon tax on large emitters, which made power purchase arrangements more unprofitable. The [NDP] had options to avoid this, but instead pursued an aggressive and ill-conceived lawsuit against PPA owners.”
    The Notley government's decision to begin phasing out coal-powered generation affects the power-purchase agreements, or PPAs, and that decision has been highly controversial. Many critics say the decision will allow power-generating companies to return PPAs to the balancing pool if the the companies deem them unprofitable 'or more unprofitable', ultimately costing taxpayers money.


    Clark said the losses will fall onto taxpayers and add "substantially" to the province's debt and costs to service it.


    “The level of mismanagement of the electricity file is mind-blowing. It’s nothing short of a scandal and Albertans will hold the NDP accountable at the polls," Clark said.
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...form=hootsuite

  63. #763

    Default

    Clearly we should have let the polluters continue to pollute so they wouldn't use the gold-plated, Teflon-coated escape hatch put in place for them by the PC government (this'd be the same PC government that made 2/3 of all coal plants in Alberta economically unviable prior to 2030 long before the NDP took over). And those "ill-conceived lawsuits" have mostly been settled...in the Province's favour (only Enmax is still outstanding).
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  64. #764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Clearly we should have let the polluters continue to pollute so they wouldn't use the gold-plated, Teflon-coated escape hatch put in place for them by the PC government (this'd be the same PC government that made 2/3 of all coal plants in Alberta economically unviable prior to 2030 long before the NDP took over). And those "ill-conceived lawsuits" have mostly been settled...in the Province's favour (only Enmax is still outstanding).
    I suspect Clark is really hoping enough of those PC remnants will come his way to make his party viable, if the PC party ends soon so he probably is not interested in criticizing them right now. How quickly and conveniently history is forgotten or ignored in Alberta.

  65. #765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    And those "ill-conceived lawsuits" have mostly been settled...in the Province's favour (only Enmax is still outstanding).
    If settling in the provinces favor is taking on 1 billion in debt and continuing to fund it on-going - yes, I guess so... I've spoken to staff at one of the companies that settled, I can assure you they are very happy at the stupidity of the province in introducing a law in a way that allowed them to break their unprofitable contract.

    Got to hand it to the Alberta Party lately, I have always thought of them as a bit of a joke, but they are holding the NDP accountable.

  66. #766

    Default

    Thanks for once again illustrating how woefully/deliberately ignorant you are in how electricity markets work in Alberta (as set up by your scion & golden god, the patron saint of kicking the can down the road to make it someone elses' problem: Ralph Klein).

    If you had the common sense to even read your own power bill correctly I might have a modicum of interest in actually discussing this with you, yet again. But as you choose to use your own ignorance as proof of NDP malfeasance I'm gonna just point & laugh at you.

    I'll hand it to the Alberta Party as well, they certainly know how to disingenuously spin an issue into a talking point that'll rile up conservatives. Guess they're taking a page from the WRP & PCs. No wonder you're eating it up with a spoon, it's tailor made to push your buttons.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  67. #767

    Default Canada’s green electricity bailouts make the Bombardier giveaway look like peanuts

    Coming our way...

    While the punditocracy whipped itself into a justifiable if ritual lather over another Ottawa bailout of Bombardier, the $372-million loan is small change compared with the multi-billion-dollar green electric power fiascos across the country.

    A rough tally of the ballooning financial plight of the electricity sectors in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland quickly runs to more than $50 billion in new debt and imbedded costs for investments that threaten to be money-losing drags on growth and consumers — and the federal government —for years to come.

    ...

    The grim state of the electricity sectors in the four provinces (with new risks of generation turmoil and price increases in Alberta) creates an impossible situation for the dreams of the Trudeau government, which announced in November plans to use electricity as a “nation-building effort.” Ottawa would be better off sticking with bailing out Bombardier for a few hundred million bucks rather than getting itself even more tangled in provincial electricity boondoggles where bailouts costs would run to the tens of billions.
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...k-like-peanuts

  68. #768
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    Looks like some US republicans are starting to get behind a carbon tax:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l_green&wpmm=1

  69. #769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Coming our way...

    While the punditocracy whipped itself into a justifiable if ritual lather over another Ottawa bailout of Bombardier, the $372-million loan is small change compared with the multi-billion-dollar green electric power fiascos across the country.

    A rough tally of the ballooning financial plight of the electricity sectors in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland quickly runs to more than $50 billion in new debt and imbedded costs for investments that threaten to be money-losing drags on growth and consumers — and the federal government —for years to come.

    ...

    The grim state of the electricity sectors in the four provinces (with new risks of generation turmoil and price increases in Alberta) creates an impossible situation for the dreams of the Trudeau government, which announced in November plans to use electricity as a “nation-building effort.” Ottawa would be better off sticking with bailing out Bombardier for a few hundred million bucks rather than getting itself even more tangled in provincial electricity boondoggles where bailouts costs would run to the tens of billions.
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...k-like-peanuts
    Manitoba and Newfoundland seem to have the biggest potential boondoggles (Ontario is already in full swing), and those are PC governments. I'll trust our local NDP to do a better job than the PC's are currently doing.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  70. #770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Manitoba and Newfoundland seem to have the biggest potential boondoggles (Ontario is already in full swing), and those are PC governments. I'll trust our local NDP to do a better job than the PC's are currently doing.
    I hope instead of investing in green energy, they use all the proceeds they won't rebate to invest in LRT or even HSR. At least we will definitely get a useful asset at the end of the day, not something like a wind or solar farm in Southern Alberta (which is where they would go) that will be obsolete in 20 years time. Very skeptical of the home energy refit plans (there was stuff like that in the past, and it was awful in terms of admin costs versus benefits, only a handful of people end up benefiting).
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-02-2017 at 10:12 AM.

  71. #771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Manitoba and Newfoundland seem to have the biggest potential boondoggles (Ontario is already in full swing), and those are PC governments. I'll trust our local NDP to do a better job than the PC's are currently doing.
    I hope instead of investing in green energy, they use all the proceeds they won't rebate to invest in LRT or even HSR. At least we will definitely get a useful asset at the end of the day, not something like a wind or solar farm in Southern Alberta (which is where they would go) that will be obsolete in 20 years time. Very skeptical of the home energy refit plans (there was stuff like that in the past, and it was awful in terms of admin costs versus benefits, only a handful of people end up benefiting).
    Or pay down the debt.

  72. #772
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,442

    Default

    Could Epcor build a power plant just across the 49th parallel to avoid taxes, high price of coal, higher labour costs, carbon levies, other regulations etc and sell the power to Albertans at cheap rates?

  73. #773

    Default

    ^its funny, something similar happened with US west coast. They introduced all sorts of green energy requirements. So they started buying "green" hydro from B.C. But that green hydro, those lakes, are filled up each night by using Coal power, a lot of which comes into BC from Alberta...
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-02-2017 at 10:44 AM.

  74. #774

    Default

    ^^ Epcor doesn't produce electricity, they just distribute and sell it.

  75. #775
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    Cant wait to see all the wind turbines dotting along down the QE 2
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  76. #776
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,442

    Default

    A few years back they showed on the news a guy with a pick up truck and a shovel and a pitchfork loading up with dead birds around the wind turbine towers by pincher creek. Since then they've always bothered me.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 11-02-2017 at 04:40 AM.

  77. #777
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacoblost View Post
    ^^ Epcor doesn't produce electricity, they just distribute and sell it.
    TransAlta ? AtcoPower ? Capital Power?
    Last edited by Drumbones; 11-02-2017 at 09:19 AM.

  78. #778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A few years back they showed on the news a guy with a pick up truck and a shovel and a pitchfork loading up with dead birds around the wind turbine towers by pincher creek. Since then they've always bothered me.
    Maybe drones could be used to scary away flocks of birds before they get into hazardous territory.

    That said, Toronto's office towers kill incredible numbers of birds yet these towers 'sit under the environmentalists and media radars' all the while literally killing millions of migratory birds.

    Here in Alberta we shouldn't be taking any bird death criticism for killing a few hundred or thousand birds without immediately going on the extreme offensive, fighting back, and highlighting what is happening in many environmentalists' very own cities. They need to clean up their own back yards. They urgently need to do clean up their own acts. Maybe we should be suggesting drones for downtown T.O., maybe Vancouver too if it's an issue there as well.



    "FLAP estimates that every year one million birds die in Toronto from colliding with buildings during the spring and fall migration seasons."
    http://globalnews.ca/news/1198283/hu...ng-collisions/





    http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/...ng-matter.html
    Last edited by KC; 11-02-2017 at 11:35 AM.

  79. #779
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A few years back they showed on the news a guy with a pick up truck and a shovel and a pitchfork loading up with dead birds around the wind turbine towers by pincher creek. Since then they've always bothered me.
    They have same problem around Three Hills. Cell phone towers kill a lot as well.
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 11-02-2017 at 11:45 AM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  80. #780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A few years back they showed on the news a guy with a pick up truck and a shovel and a pitchfork loading up with dead birds around the wind turbine towers by pincher creek. Since then they've always bothered me.
    They have same problem around Three Hills. Cell phone towers kill a lot as well.
    Like "dirty oil", I guess there's dirty screens.

  81. #781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A few years back they showed on the news a guy with a pick up truck and a shovel and a pitchfork loading up with dead birds around the wind turbine towers by pincher creek. Since then they've always bothered me.
    They have same problem around Three Hills. Cell phone towers kill a lot as well.
    Like "dirty oil", I guess there's dirty screens.
    Your comment confuses me KC.

    You know there are no screens around wind turbines?

    The aerodynamic turbulence they cause would drop the efficiency of the blades dramatically and costs for 360 degree screens that size would be astronomical.

    T

  82. #782

    Default

    Yeah, wind turbines. That's all we need dotted around the country side. Taken up farm land, millions of dollars to maintain, about as much use as a plastic barbeque grill when there is no wind and finally, a blight on birds.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-turbine.html
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  83. #783
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,442

    Default

    I like the look of the old dutch windmills but I hate these.

  84. #784

    Default

    There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about metal/concrete windmills. Blight on the countryside. An expensive outlay for little return.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  85. #785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A few years back they showed on the news a guy with a pick up truck and a shovel and a pitchfork loading up with dead birds around the wind turbine towers by pincher creek. Since then they've always bothered me.
    They have same problem around Three Hills. Cell phone towers kill a lot as well.
    Like "dirty oil", I guess there's dirty screens.
    Your comment confuses me KC.

    You know there are no screens around wind turbines?

    The aerodynamic turbulence they cause would drop the efficiency of the blades dramatically and costs for 360 degree screens that size would be astronomical.

    T

    Yeah poor comment on my part.
    Screens though are smartphones, tablets, tvs, monitors, wearables and all the other rechargeables creating electricity demand.

    "Many things are written and said about the oil sands, and one of the allegations frequently made is that the oil derived from the naturally occurring bitumen is “dirty”, tainted with the stain of environmental destruction."

    http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/1853828

  86. #786
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about metal/concrete windmills. Blight on the countryside. An expensive outlay for little return.
    I think they are pleasant to look at in moderation. Reminds me of Holland. Very future-quaint.

  87. #787
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,586

    Default

    An average wind turbine (all things considered) can generate 6 million kWh in a year. And that's 1 wind turbine.

    http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/
    Last edited by envaneo; 12-02-2017 at 01:48 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  88. #788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Yeah, wind turbines. That's all we need dotted around the country side. Taken up farm land, millions of dollars to maintain, about as much use as a plastic barbeque grill when there is no wind and finally, a blight on birds.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-turbine.html

    Wilderness is also destroyed by new transmission lines needed to distribute the power from these wind farms.

  89. #789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Yeah, wind turbines. That's all we need dotted around the country side. Taken up farm land, millions of dollars to maintain, about as much use as a plastic barbeque grill when there is no wind and finally, a blight on birds.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-turbine.html

    Wilderness is also destroyed by new transmission lines needed to distribute the power from these wind farms.
    Build taller towers and eliminate the cut lines.

  90. #790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    An average wind turbine (all things considered) can generate 6 million kWh in a year. And that's 1 wind turbine.

    http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/
    See pages 22 and 23 and note the capacity factors - and these are presumably in the choicest locations.

    https://www.aeso.ca/assets/listedfil...-Stats-WEB.pdf

    http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/...uments/DD3.pdf


    So probably pretty simplistically speaking, it would seem that to totally replace 10 MW capacity of say coal generation, we'd need 30 or maybe 40 MW of wind.
    Last edited by KC; 12-02-2017 at 02:46 PM.

  91. #791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Yeah, wind turbines. That's all we need dotted around the country side. Taken up farm land, millions of dollars to maintain, about as much use as a plastic barbeque grill when there is no wind and finally, a blight on birds.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-turbine.html

    Wilderness is also destroyed by new transmission lines needed to distribute the power from these wind farms.
    Build taller towers and eliminate the cut lines.
    How would you propose to 1) build them, 2) wire them, and 3) service them without a path between them?
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  92. #792
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    There isn't a lot of wilderness between the windy ridges of the southwest or the sunny southeast and the cities. It is almost all agricultural land, and the few natural areas are prairie grassland, not forest.

  93. #793

    Default

    As long as the City keeps buying diesel buses, we know that they aren't very serious about pollution. They've had lots of opportunity to change since electric busses have been around for decades it seems.

    Moreover, like cigarettes vs campfires, diesel buses put the pollutants in much more direct contact with populations, whereas dirty electricity production spreads pollutants across vast uninhabited acres, farmland, etc.

    Misguided policy and unintended consequences (ie a failure of a lot of people to simply use their brains):

    A Push for Diesel Leaves London Gasping Amid Record Pollution

    Researchers from the London School of Medicine say that cyclists inhale more than twice the amount of black carbon particles as pedestrians making the same trip.


    ...
    The current problem is, in part, an unintended consequence of previous efforts to aid the environment.

    The British government provided financial incentives to encourage a shift to diesel engines because laboratory tests suggested that would cut harmful emissions and combat climate change. Yet, it turned out that diesel cars emit on average five times as much emissions in real-world driving conditions as in the tests, according to a British Department for Transport study.
    ...

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mobile.n...?client=safari
    Last edited by KC; 18-02-2017 at 10:38 AM.

  94. #794
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    London has always been bad. If they think London is bad, they should try Leicester.

  95. #795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    As long as the City keeps buying diesel buses, we know that they aren't very serious about pollution. They've had lots of opportunity to change since electric busses have been around for decades it seems.

    Moreover, like cigarettes vs campfires, diesel buses put the pollutants in much more direct contact with populations, whereas dirty electricity production spreads pollutants across vast uninhabited acres, farmland, etc.

    Misguided policy and unintended consequences (ie a failure of a lot of people to simply use their brains):
    According to Don's recent facebook live video about the LRT/transit, the city's planned purchase of up to 40 electric buses is one of the largest in Canada so in my opinion Edmonton is quite progressive on this.

  96. #796

    Default

    ^^Practical electric buses for our climate are pretty new. I think it was only a couple winters ago that Winnipeg started their testing. And remember the Chinese bus(es?) We borrowed? They hadn't built one with a heater yet at that time.
    There can only be one.

  97. #797
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    ^Battery electric buses may be new, but we had a whole fleet of electric trolley buses that were retired without replacement when they became too difficult to keep in good repair.

  98. #798
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    London has always been bad. If they think London is bad, they should try Leicester.
    LOL! Must be affecting the football team as well.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  99. #799

    Default

    CC technology is slowly making progress and economic feasibility - much like solar and wind have done.

    Revolutionary Power Plant Captures All Its Carbon Emissions, At No Extra Cost
    FEB 21, 2017, Helman , FORBES STAFF


    Environmentalists are hopeful. "It's not just a bridge, it's a destination," says John Thompson, who directs the carbon-capture program at the Clean Air Task Force. Renewable energy sources haven't scaled fast enough to replace fossil fuels, and zero-carbon nuclear is too expensive. "We're going to have to use fossil fuels in the future whether we like it or not," Allam says. "The challenge will be in using fossil fuels to produce electricity without emitting CO2 into the atmosphere."

    ...
    A full-size NetPower plant will generate 300MW and 800,000 tons of CO2 per year and cost around $300 million to build. "The plan is to build these in oil regions, then transport the power," says Daniel McCarthy, head of tech investments at CB&I. "If you can generate power without carbon dioxide and with no economic penalty versus existing technology, why wouldn't you do that?" It'll take a few months of operation before NetPower can prove the stability of the cycle. Allam predicts his invention will soon sell itself: "In a year we will know for sure."

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop.../#2d9b07e74000

  100. #800
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    8,790

    Default

    Just received the first power and gas bill for my office that has the carbon levy on it. Looks to be about $52.50 on the 51.920 GJ we consumed after January 1st. Which is what it's supposed to be. So instead of paying about $6.80/GJ (including all the riders, fixed/variable charges etc etc and based on a bill where we have a fair amount of consumption), we're paying about $7.80/GJ. Looks like we consume about 350-400 GJ a year on average, so the cost impact would be about $400 a year. It's not nothing, but it's not something that I'm going to lose much sleep over either.

    Zero change to the electrical side of the bill, as expected.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •