In defense of sustainable energy.

[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.

[chuckChuck]

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...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/521671/cheap-hydrogen-from-sunlight-and-water/
Cheap Hydrogen from Sunlight and Water
Stanford researchers say new materials could help lower the cost of producing fuel with solar energy.

by Kevin Bullis November 14, 2013

Hydrogen generated using sunlight could replace fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation.

By making a solar photovoltaic material more resilient, researchers may have found a way to make artificial photosynthesis—that is, using sunlight to make fuel—cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

If you want hydrogen to power an engine or a fuel cell, it’s far cheaper to get it from natural gas than to make it by splitting water. Solar power, however, could compete with natural gas as a way to make hydrogen if the solar process were somewhere between 15 and 25 percent efficient, says the U.S. Department of Energy. While that’s more than twice as efficient as current approaches, researchers at Stanford University have recently developed materials that could make it possible to hit that goal. The work is described in the journal Science.

[burnt]

Once again, chucky, we are interested in learning what your actions have been toward reducing your dependency on carbon fuels as well as your personal plans.

Seems like you keep avoiding the questions that have been repeatedly put to you.

Surely you are not just another socialist who loves to talk about it but expects everyone else to make the changes, are you?

[chuckChuck]

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/30/future-pv-the-feasibility-of-solar-powered-hydrogen-production/
Future PV: The feasibility of solar-powered hydrogen production

There is a solid business case to combine PV plants with electrolyzers, as generation costs are low enough to competitively produce hydrogen as a fuel, says Bjørn Simonsen of NEL Hydrogen. He will speak at pv magazine’s Future PV event at SPI in Las Vegas.

[chuckChuck]

Once again, chucky, we are interested in learning what your actions have been toward reducing your dependency on carbon fuels as well as your personal plans.

Seems like you keep avoiding the questions that have been repeatedly put to you.

Surely you are not just another socialist who loves to talk about it but expects everyone else to make the changes, are you?

Diversion from Burnt. Because your arguments are lame! LOL

[burnt]

Diversion from Burnt. Because your arguments are lame! LOL

So you are admitting that you're are just another "progressive" hypocrite.

Because you'll notice that I wasn't making any argument, merely asking how you back your "beliefs" and claim with actions.

It's because people like you vote that we end up with the worst empty suit of a PM that this country has ever had - all talk, no substance.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/521671/cheap-hydrogen-from-sunlight-and-water/
Cheap Hydrogen from Sunlight and Water
Stanford researchers say new materials could help lower the cost of producing fuel with solar energy.

by Kevin Bullis November 14, 2013

Hydrogen generated using sunlight could replace fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation.

By making a solar photovoltaic material more resilient, researchers may have found a way to make artificial photosynthesis—that is, using sunlight to make fuel—cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

If you want hydrogen to power an engine or a fuel cell, it’s far cheaper to get it from natural gas than to make it by splitting water. Solar power, however, could compete with natural gas as a way to make hydrogen if the solar process were somewhere between 15 and 25 percent efficient, says the U.S. Department of Energy. While that’s more than twice as efficient as current approaches, researchers at Stanford University have recently developed materials that could make it possible to hit that goal. The work is described in the journal Science.

So all we need to do is more than double the efficiency of the solar process and hydrogen fuel from solar is a viable fuel, just a minor roadblock. The optimist in me hopes this will become reality, the realist thinks those same pesky laws of thermodynamics won't make it easy. I am all for subsidizing those researchers at Stanford to create the materials to improve the efficiency to make this a reality. I would be strictly against Toyota releasing a fuel cell powered car and my tax dollars subsidizing both the cost of the car and the cost of producing the fuel, if the technology does not yet exist to make it cost effective on its own. As has been happening with the current electric cars and green energy to power them.