In defense of sustainable energy.

[chuckChuck]

From Alberta5
"Or better yet, quit taking tax dollars away from productive segments of society to give to parasitic schemes such as most current green energy projects, and the productive members of society will have the resources to solve these problems on their own, instead of allowing scientifically illiterate governments and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers?"

So are you also in favour of cutting subsidies to fossil energy producers? The estimate I believe is 3 billion per year in Canada. And that doesn't include external costs such as environmental damage, pollution, and additional health care costs.

[GDR]

I think part of the future might be more small scale production and less waste. Not sure how grid ties would work though. Every day we see constant waste in our lives, energy is no different. Lots of oil wells venting gas cause it don't pay to pipe it, put a mini generator on site, every manure lagoon capture the methane released, on site generation from that. Bio digester for organic waste. Radiators on engines just take the heat produced and disperse it, why not find a way to harness it. Harness static electricity. Compression force of gravity and weights? Even exercise machines, millions of people use everyday and there energy is just wasted when could be small scale generation. Gotta be someway to generate electricity from highway traffic be it friction, wind something. The solar shingles they've come up with seem smart compared to regular solar panels. No end to small scale ideas.

On a large scale basis I like ethanol production, may be biased as a farmer but seems to make sense and by products are valuable.

When all else fails just take a lesson from Marty McFlie and catch some lightning bolts!

[samhill]

NRG

Meanwhile, saving fossil fuels by converting much of today's transport to almost all rail and (tic) water by wind and solar.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

From Alberta5
"Or better yet, quit taking tax dollars away from productive segments of society to give to parasitic schemes such as most current green energy projects, and the productive members of society will have the resources to solve these problems on their own, instead of allowing scientifically illiterate governments and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers?"

So are you also in favour of cutting subsidies to fossil energy producers? The estimate I believe is 3 billion per year in Canada. And that doesn't include external costs such as environmental damage, pollution, and additional health care costs.

I am in favour of removing subsidies from all industries with the exception of well focused research. I especially include farmers in that.

I was looking forward to your review of my post, And that is the worst you can find to find fault with?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think part of the future might be more small scale production and less waste. Not sure how grid ties would work though. Every day we see constant waste in our lives, energy is no different. Lots of oil wells venting gas cause it don't pay to pipe it, put a mini generator on site, every manure lagoon capture the methane released, on site generation from that. Bio digester for organic waste. Radiators on engines just take the heat produced and disperse it, why not find a way to harness it. Harness static electricity. Compression force of gravity and weights? Even exercise machines, millions of people use everyday and there energy is just wasted when could be small scale generation. Gotta be someway to generate electricity from highway traffic be it friction, wind something. The solar shingles they've come up with seem smart compared to regular solar panels. No end to small scale ideas.

On a large scale basis I like ethanol production, may be biased as a farmer but seems to make sense and by products are valuable.

When all else fails just take a lesson from Marty McFlie and catch some lightning bolts!

Yes, so many potential sources of energy and efficiency gains, ignored while we heavily subsidize turbines, solar panels and electric car production, at the expense of all other potential sources.

I know it is minor in the big scheme of things, but when I see an electric motor driving a treadmill, not the other way around, I can't help but shake my head at where societies priorities are.

[chuckChuck]

I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic.

[burnt]

I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic.

Have you ever answered the question of how far you are toward getting off the fossil-fuel dependent grid?

You wouldn't be just another progressive fan-boy enjoying the status quo while saying how harmful it is, would you chucky? (The hallmarks of Gore, Suzuki and climate barbie, you know?)

Where is your investment showing your personal commitment to the ideals you tout?

[furrowtickler]

I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic.

Wrong chucky , it’s the lack of evidence that carbon tax will change the climate. And that most of us are already paying a very steep price to reduce emissions with tier 4 emissions on equipment . And have already made huge strides in reducing fuel usage with reduced tillage. Both direct benefits to the environment.
A carbon tax is an excuse for wealth transfer with no direct proof of helping the environment. It really has no climate purpose at all when it is to be given all back to the provinces . This is to be just a slush fund for governments to play with in reality. So it serves no purpose as to its intentions.
If the carbon tax was going to help change the environment then it may be workable . But it’s not , under their own admission at high UN levels. They have openly admitted that it’s a wealth transfer scheme targeted extract wealth from energy producing economies and industries who depend on fossil fuels.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck"
Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage."

This is yet another example of an easily led consumer confusing energy consumption with energy production. Hydrogen fuel cells are not a means of creating energy, but rather a very energy intensive process of converting energy forms and storing it. Creating Hydrogen fuel requires far more energy than can be returned. All due to those nasty laws of thermodynamics. But perhaps Toyota has circumvented those silly laws...

[Guest]

Wrong chucky , it’s the lack of evidence that carbon tax will change the climate. And that most of us are already paying a very steep price to reduce emissions with tier 4 emissions on equipment . And have already made huge strides in reducing fuel usage with reduced tillage. Both direct benefits to the environment.
A carbon tax is an excuse for wealth transfer with no direct proof of helping the environment. It really has no climate purpose at all when it is to be given all back to the provinces . This is to be just a slush fund for governments to play with in reality. So it serves no purpose as to its intentions.
If the carbon tax was going to help change the environment then it may be workable . But it’s not , under their own admission at high UN levels. They have openly admitted that it’s a wealth transfer scheme targeted extract wealth from energy producing economies and industries who depend on fossil fuels.

not a chance in hell it will all go back to provinces, two thirds will create more jobs in Quebec or new. Brunswick