Green energy is dumb

[seldomseen]

Are you making any progress with your solar farm ChuckChuck? I for one would be interested in how things are coming along.

[TASFarms]

What would hail insurance be on on 70 acres of solar panels. 15000 1x2m panels. With a crop it's one season production. Plant new seeds next year. Solar farm 100% hail would be more than it cost to put up the first time? What would hail damage be to hydro. Next to nothing compared to a solar farm

[grassfarmer]

Actually the newer solar panels are pretty much resistant to hail - made of different materials to the early ones.
For all the doubters that think solar power only works in summer....



A simple solar system pumping water out of a slough for 350 head of cattle, keeps up no problem even after days of grey overcast skies and snow. Little solar fencer running a hotwire around it - got a 3" by 2" panel and putting out over 9000volts.

[farmaholic]

This debate goes on and on about energy production and what's best.

What about conservation?

Like I said before. ...driving Junior in a fuel guzzling SUV or 3/4 ton truck to the artificial ice hockey rink in JULY!!!!!

Lights on in office buildings 24/7.

Buildings with more glass than insulated walls!!!! In sub-arctic winters!!!

Drive anywhere for anything!!!

I wonder how much power is consumed charging cell phones...lol.

Maybe some conservation would be in order....look around you.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Actually the newer solar panels are pretty much resistant to hail - made of different materials to the early ones.
For all the doubters that think solar power only works in summer....

[ATTACH]2274[/ATTACH]

A simple solar system pumping water out of a slough for 350 head of cattle, keeps up no problem even after days of grey overcast skies and snow. Little solar fencer running a hotwire around it - got a 3" by 2" panel and putting out over 9000volts.

Shame on you. That should be powered by a giant pile of burning tires and coal!

[Hamloc]

This is all very interesting. But Chuck2 what about consumer preference? I just read Revenge of the SUV: Why is this gas-loving ride once again king of the road?, in the Financial post. Interesting that roughly 70% of the vehicle market is light trucks and SUVS. Passenger car sales are dropping and companies are slowing production of passénger cars. Consumer preference is totally against all your fake news!

[Klause]

Hydro power is over 20 times more carbon efficient than solar. Nuclear is more than 10 times as efficient.




Yet we keep talking about windmills that kill more birds than the tarsand pools and solar panels that are inefficient as heck.


The green agenda is retarded.

[chuckChuck]

This is all very interesting. But Chuck2 what about consumer preference? I just read Revenge of the SUV: Why is this gas-loving ride once again king of the road?, in the Financial post. Interesting that roughly 70% of the vehicle market is light trucks and SUVS. Passenger car sales are dropping and companies are slowing production of passénger cars. Consumer preference is totally against all your fake news!

It often goes up and down depending on the price of gas. The small car market is very competitive. SUVs and trucks are much more profitable than cars.

I don't know how much TV you watch but there is a lot of advertising especially of trucks and SUVs.

Trucks and SUVs are heavily marketed because they are more profitable than cars.

We live in a culture that defines us by the the kind of vehicle we drive. Consumers often make emotional decisions more than practical ones.

We have designed our cities and lives around vehicle ownership.

They say that many millennials are less interested in owning and driving a car as they would rather be on their smart phones. Ride sharing services and driverless cars may make ownership less important in the future.

Vehicles are a necessity in rural areas. If I lived in a big city with good public transit I would probably not own one and if I did I would leave it in the garage most of the time. It is cheaper to rent when you need one.

Klause mentioned this many weeks ago about the inneficiency of driving a single person around in a 200hp car. Internal combustion engines in vehicles range from only 20-50% efficiency.

It seems crazy that parents are driving a giant SUV or Pickup truck in the city to pickup groceries and run the kids around.

We are culturally and economically wedded to this idea of independence but it doesnt make much sense from a practical point of view if you look at energy efficiency and economics. We enable this car culture with huge public investment in infrastructure. Why not invest more in public transport where it works because it is a better investment?

Why use the phrase "fake news" at the end? Its an interesting question and you make a stupid comment at the end that makes no sense. Is everything you disagree with based on fake news? It seems kind of an infantile way to see the world. In effect it is a dumbing down of the discussion. The Trump effect!

[Klause]

It often goes up and down depending on the price of gas. The small car market is very competitive. SUVs and trucks are much more profitable than cars.

I don't know how much TV you watch but there is a lot of advertising especially of trucks and SUVs.

Trucks and SUVs are heavily marketed because they are more profitable than cars.

We live in a culture that defines us by the the kind of vehicle we drive. Consumers often make emotional decisions more than practical ones.

We have designed our cities and lives around vehicle ownership.

They say that many millennials are less interested in owning and driving a car as they would rather be on their smart phones. Ride sharing services and driverless cars may make ownership less important in the future.

Vehicles are a necessity in rural areas. If I lived in a big city with good public transit I would probably not own one and if I did I would leave it in the garage most of the time. It is cheaper to rent when you need one.

Klause mentioned this many weeks ago about the inneficiency of driving a single person around in a 200hp car. Internal combustion engines in vehicles range from only 20-50% efficiency.

It seems crazy that parents are driving a giant SUV or Pickup truck in the city to pickup groceries and run the kids around.

We are culturally and economically wedded to this idea of independence but it doesnt make much sense from a practical point of view if you look at energy efficiency and economics. We enable this car culture with huge public investment in infrastructure. Why not invest more in public transport where it works because it is a better investment?

Why use the phrase "fake news" at the end? Its an interesting question and you make a stupid comment at the end that makes no sense. Is everything you disagree with based on fake news? It seems kind of an infantile way to see the world. In effect it is a dumbing down of the discussion. The Trump effect!

I actually agreed with most of your last post Chuck.


Canada really needs more urban public transit... If you watch people in Saskatoon even going to work... They spend more time idling in traffic than moving. Burning fuel for nothing... Busses rapid rail and subways should replace gas cars... Or at the very least small nimble and light EVs... Any studies on what we would do to ghg emissions if we took all commuter cars off the street in Canada (or better yet north America's) biggest cities?

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Klause, wind turbines kill 300,000 birds a year. House cats kill 3,000,000,000.

[blackpowder]

Now thats funny. Housecats. Hey, wonder what the largest crop is? Lawngrass probably. Fert and herb inefficient.

I cant blame anyone for buying an suv. But it does show what percentage of their income theyre willing to spend. (More than all).
Obviously gas is still cheap??
A fact the govt picks up on with their new taxes.

[chuckChuck]

I actually agreed with most of your last post Chuck.


Canada really needs more urban public transit... If you watch people in Saskatoon even going to work... They spend more time idling in traffic than moving. Burning fuel for nothing... Busses rapid rail and subways should replace gas cars... Or at the very least small nimble and light EVs... Any studies on what we would do to ghg emissions if we took all commuter cars off the street in Canada (or better yet north America's) biggest cities?

I expect it would have a large impact. But I haven't any studies. The direct costs are high plus all the lost productivity and quality of life issues associated with long commutes.

When the Sask Party cut STC there was little mention of all the subsidies that go to transportation through investments in highways. But nobody expects highways to make money on their own. But STC was cut because it cost the government $17 million a year. $17 million is nothing compared to the 1.1 billion to be spent on highways in 2017/18.

Cutting STC was an attack on rural residents and especially seniors who need bus service. It was a terrible loss and bad politics.


"Highways Budget Tops $1 Billion for Second Year in a Row

Released on March 22, 2017
The $1.1 billion 2017-18 Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure budget will see work continue on major projects and 990 kilometres (km) of provincial highways across Saskatchewan over the coming year.

“This is the second largest transportation budget in Saskatchewan’s history and the second year in a row that we will invest more than $1.0 billion into our highways and roads,” Highways and Infrastructure Minister David Marit said. “This budget is a testament to our government’s commitment to provide infrastructure that grows our economy and improves safety, while keeping our fiscal house in order during these challenging times.”

This year’s budget includes $343 million to start or continue construction across the province, as well as $500 million for the Regina Bypass."

[Hamloc]

It often goes up and down depending on the price of gas. The small car market is very competitive. SUVs and trucks are much more profitable than cars.

I don't know how much TV you watch but there is a lot of advertising especially of trucks and SUVs.

Trucks and SUVs are heavily marketed because they are more profitable than cars.

We live in a culture that defines us by the the kind of vehicle we drive. Consumers often make emotional decisions more than practical ones.

We have designed our cities and lives around vehicle ownership.

They say that many millennials are less interested in owning and driving a car as they would rather be on their smart phones. Ride sharing services and driverless cars may make ownership less important in the future.

Vehicles are a necessity in rural areas. If I lived in a big city with good public transit I would probably not own one and if I did I would leave it in the garage most of the time. It is cheaper to rent when you need one.

Klause mentioned this many weeks ago about the inneficiency of driving a single person around in a 200hp car. Internal combustion engines in vehicles range from only 20-50% efficiency.

It seems crazy that parents are driving a giant SUV or Pickup truck in the city to pickup groceries and run the kids around.

We are culturally and economically wedded to this idea of independence but it doesnt make much sense from a practical point of view if you look at energy efficiency and economics. We enable this car culture with huge public investment in infrastructure. Why not invest more in public transport where it works because it is a better investment?

Why use the phrase "fake news" at the end? Its an interesting question and you make a stupid comment at the end that makes no sense. Is everything you disagree with based on fake news? It seems kind of an infantile way to see the world. In effect it is a dumbing down of the discussion. The Trump effect!

Chuck2, the reason I said fake news is very simple, most news organizations have an editorial slant that permeates their their reporting. As an example the Toronto Star is left leaning as is the CBC, the Financial post is right leaning.

The article(which it appears you didn't read) could be reported in many different ways depending on your outlook. The fact that 70% of vehicles sold are SUVs and pickup trucks would be more favourably reported by more right leaning organizations. If you go into the article further it talks about GM planning to build more electric and hybrid vehicles in the future. Left leaning news outlets would emphasize this part of the news and would predict the end of gas powered vehicles. So depending on what narrative you are trying to push on the public changes how you report the news. Hence my use of fake news.

The Guardian talked about wind energy and renewables supplying all the energy for one day. That leaves 364 days which require conventional power sources to supply the balance of power. So yes it an accomplishment for renewables but the fact remains with today's technology they are still not the solution. Plus if 70% of vehicles purchased being SUVs there is no way that this is just rural citizens as they only comprise what maybe 5% of the population, many city dwellers must be buying them as well. A large cultural change will be required for your electrical vehicle future utopia.

[tweety]

If you want renewable innovation, raise the price of oil and gas 10x.

As long as non renews are free, nothing will change much because nothing will compete against it.

Klause you are right, 2 ways to help renewable energy - just use less energy period.

[Klause]

If you want renewable innovation, raise the price of oil and gas 10x.

As long as non renews are free, nothing will change much because nothing will compete against it.

Klause you are right, 2 ways to help renewable energy - just use less energy period.

You need to get rid of lobbies too.

Hydro power is cheaper to build and maintain than nuclear wind or any other source on a $/GWh scale yet the environment lobby keeps wanting to shut it down...