In defense of sustainable energy.

[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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

There are a lot of places where they make sense, most locations between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn for example can make solar energy quite reliably year round. Wind turbines in southern Alberta have respectable uptime due to consistent winds. Places with no grid power source are obvious candidates, saw a bunch of houses in Hawaii with no access to grid using entirely solar power, I don't suppose they know what a block heater is though...

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.

No, I don't think that is true of anyone I know, or from what I read on here. Most of us want to know that when it is 40 below outside, and we need our chore tractors to start, and stock waters to not freeze up, and heat and light in our houses to work, that it will be reliable and affordable. In these northern climes, we already face enough obstacles to our competitiveness without forcing us to pay exhorbitant costs for supposed green energy.

[Hamloc]

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.

My favourite radio talk show had an interesting guest this morning. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the research organization he represented(wasn't a right wing think tank lol). Anyway. What they were studying was the practicality and cost of maximizing renewable electrical sources, using electric heat in homes instead of natural gas and using electric cars instead of gas and what changes this would requires to the amount of electrical generation capacity. They also were looking at how these changes would help meet GHG emission reduction targets.

As far as wind and solar, good contributor to emission reductions but we will still require a stable base load. Provinces like Quebec with large hydro resources could achieve very low near zero emission electrical generation. In Alberta base load would come from natural gas. Anyway, the numbers that stuck in my head. We would require almost 3 times present generation capacity to power all the electric car generating stations and heat electrically. The increased electrical demand and cost of additional infrastructure would increase electricity costs an additional 33% over cost of inflation increases of 2% a year. In Alberta all these changes would only get us 16% of the way to the emission reduction targets set out in the Paris agreement.

Went on an Atco calculator sight. For a new 2000 sq. foot house built in Alberta, average cost to heat with natural gas(at what I pay which is $6.75 a gigajoule including carbon tax) would be $600 a year. Same home heated with electricity( at what I pay which is 20 cents a kwh) it would cost just over $3900 a year.

So Chuck I am not opposed to advances in technology but I am against government's making bad poorly thought out decisions prompted by environmentalists who obviously despise the oil industry. FYI you never did say what you would apply a carbon tax to or how much carbon tax you would be willing to pay per tonne. Would you tax methane, N02, as a farmer would you be able to compete?

[chuckChuck]

So its okay to subsidize the fossil energy business and usage? No responses from the arm chair experts on that yet.

Germany. Denmark, England have all invested alot in wind and some solar.

And here in Conservative Saskatchewan, defender of the oil industry in your own backyard you completely ignore what Saskpower is planning under the watch of Brad Wall and Scott Moe?

If this technology doesn't work why is it happening in Saskatchewan of all places?



http://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/renewables-roadmap/

"We're committed to managing emissions as we rebuild the electricity system to meet the needs of our growing province. We've set a target of 50% of generation capacity from renewables by 2030. To achieve this goal, we will double the percentage of renewables in our supply mix in just 15 years.

Meeting this target will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions – about 40% below 2005 levels. It will also provide opportunities for private sector power producers.

We’ll add 60 megawatts (MW) of utility scale solar generation by 2021.

"The launch of Saskatchewan’s utility-scale solar electricity generation procurement marks another major milestone for renewable energy in Canada. Saskatchewan’s world-class solar energy resource combined with significant cost declines in recent years make solar energy a more cost-effective option for the province than ever before. The time is right for Saskatchewan to begin to explore the role that solar energy will play in the province’s future supply-mix."

- John Gorman, President & CEO, Canadian Solar Industries Association

Our Plans for Solar

As part of our plans to power a sustainable future, we’ve developed a phased approach to adding utility scale solar projects to our provincial grid.
This involves a combination of:

Our Goal for Wind Power

Our goal is to have 30% wind power capacity by 2030.
Timeline for Procurement

As we plan the procurement process, we’re reviewing our policies for soliciting projects from independent power producers to make sure our processes follow best practice and fairness standards and meet the needs of power producers and other stakeholders involved. We’ll post more details as we develop our plans."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So its okay to subsidize the fossil energy business and usage? No responses from the arm chair experts on that yet.

If you bothered to read the responses, I did respond to that a few posts further up. I am against subsidizing any industry, with the exception of research.