Furrow Bang on!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I have heard it said that there are already more jobs in the clean tech sector in Canada that there is in the oil and gas industry.

Can someone please show the new math which proves that you can have more jobs creating drastically less energy, and then have that energy be cheaper at the end.

[/B] Batteries are also dropping dramatically in cost. Cheap batteries enable wind and solar to run when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. "

This is excellent news, somehow I and everyone else seem to have missed this breakthrough, evidence please?

I am not just sure how we landed anyone on the moon without science and scientists to figure it out? But that was all fake too....according to some brainiacs!

We landed on the moon using copious amounts of cheap energy dense fossil fuels. Try that using batteries.

[chuckChuck]

Can someone please show the new math which proves that you can have more jobs creating drastically less energy, and then have that energy be cheaper at the end.

This is excellent news, somehow I and everyone else seem to have missed this breakthrough, evidence please?


We landed on the moon using copious amounts of cheap energy dense fossil fuels. Try that using batteries.

Alberta do you even believe in math and science? Because you continuously deny scientists findings on human caused climate change.

Why would you assume that there would be drastically less energy available as we transition away from fossil fuels? You are ignoring some key facts about how much solar energy is available. ( see below) Collecting, storing and distributing this energy present several challenges. But storage options are already being used and new cheaper and more efficient ones will be developed. All of this development, manufacturing and deployment requires many jobs.

"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[10] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[11][12] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[13] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,[14]

Here are several examples of better batteries. Lithium batteries that power a 1/2 impact wrench on our farm are already much better and relatively cheap and long lasting. We have stopped using an air impact wrench for most jobs as the rechargeable Dewalt works so well and is a lot nicer without an air hose attached. Batteries in your phone. LED lights and rechargable batteries last for a long time.
All are much improved.

I will let the rocket scientists figure out how to propel rockets into space. How many rockets do we need in a year? Not very many relative to how much fossil energy is used elsewhere.

We also used to use coal to power locomotives and farm tractors at one time. But not any more. Diesel and electric are widely used in locomotives.

Farm tractors are being developed to use electric motors and batteries as well. See John Deere https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJOyITolHUk

[sumdumguy]

If Sheer keeps talking about reversing marijuana legalization, the Conservatives will get slaughtered at the polls. Can’t they see that marijuana legalization is the platform that Trudeau won the last election on? Good grief, what a bunch!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you made the preposterous claim that renewable energy employs more people than fossil fuels, yet as of today, renewables are a rounding error when compared to fossil fuel energy, if that miniscule amount already requires more labour, how could it possibly already be cheaper to produce? Something doesn't add up.

[bobofthenorth]

From Bloomberg:
"The cost of an average PV plant falls 71% by 2050. Wind energy is getting cheaper too, and we expect it to drop 58% by 2050. PV and wind are already cheaper than building new large-scale coal and gas plants. Batteries are also dropping dramatically in cost. Cheap batteries enable wind and solar to run when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. "

Do you actually read (comprehend) the crap you post? "falls 71% by 2050"? Give me a break. Maybe I could accept "fall significantly" but 71%? Why not 83.276? If you're going to spew fiction you might as well go for the gusto. IF - and that's a huge IF - If so-called green energy is going to go anywhere it isn't going to be stored by the battery technology we know today. There are some potential geo-storage solutions which I'm pretty skeptical about but they may mature. Batteries simply aren't going to be the answer.

The real green energy is nuclear but all you eco-loons blew your credibility on that subject 30 years ago so you can't very well go there now. If you're really concerned about CO2 emissions we can solve that overnight with proven reliable nuclear technology. The loons won't go there because their real agenda is world socialism.

[RWT101]

cc




Notice the 40 north latitude line.





Notice where the 40 north lat is on this one.


Do you think that it was an accident that the ice sheet did not go further south?
Or was it because that is where the line between positive radiance and the negative radiance begins?


The fact that the earth receives a gazillion watts per hour means little to nothing to those north of 40 lat.

The suns energy is NOT distributed equally all over the world.

Those between 40n and 40 south can well utilize the suns radiance bonus nicely.

We can cannot. That is why it is an unreliable source for us and we would be foolish to spend a lot of tax dollars on it.
I am all for private investment doing what they want but public tax dollars, no way.

And don't you think it would have been silly of Justhin, Climate Barbie and Red Rachel to be sitting around the old cave 18000 years ago and talking about fighting climate change? Just as it is now.

FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE. What a ridiculous statement.

Look at what a beautiful land we have gained because of climate change.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, you made the preposterous claim that renewable energy employs more people than fossil fuels, yet as of today, renewables are a rounding error when compared to fossil fuel energy, if that miniscule amount already requires more labour, how could it possibly already be cheaper to produce? Something doesn't add up.

Actually didn't say that. I said clean tech which is a broader term than renewable energy alone.

From Statistics Canada:
"An estimated 274,000 jobs were attributable to environmental and clean technology activity in 2016, accounting for 1.5% of jobs in the Canadian economy. The average annual labour compensation per job, including benefits, was $92,000, compared with an economy-wide average of $59,900. Employment in 2016 was 4.5% higher than in 2007, while employment in the total economy rose 8.4% over the same period.

Excluding electricity and waste, environmental and clean technology employment comprised 1.0% of total employment or 178,000 jobs in 2016, up 5.0% from 2007. The average compensation per job excluding electricity and waste was $82,000."

From Statistics Canada:
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction - 199,780 direct jobs in 2017.

The green/clean tech job estimate is quite broad and the Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction is narrower and would not include related industry jobs.

Both the clean tech and resource extraction sectors are large employers and very important to the economy. But to make the argument that clean tech and renewable energy does not create jobs or grow the economy is wrong.

[TSIPP]

Big difference between attributable jobs and direct jobs

Fake news again cc.

[chuckChuck]

cc

[ATTACH]3566[/ATTACH]


Notice the 40 north latitude line.


[ATTACH]3567[/ATTACH]


Notice where the 40 north lat is on this one.


Do you think that it was an accident that the ice sheet did not go further south?
Or was it because that is where the line between positive radiance and the negative radiance begins?


The fact that the earth receives a gazillion watts per hour means little to nothing to those north of 40 lat.

The suns energy is NOT distributed equally all over the world.

Those between 40n and 40 south can well utilize the suns radiance bonus nicely.

We can cannot. That is why it is an unreliable source for us and we would be foolish to spend a lot of tax dollars on it.
I am all for private investment doing what they want but public tax dollars, no way.

And don't you think it would have been silly of Justhin, Climate Barbie and Red Rachel to be sitting around the old cave 18000 years ago and talking about fighting climate change? Just as it is now.

FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE. What a ridiculous statement.

Look at what a beautiful land we have gained because of climate change.

Everyone knows that solar has its limitations at the present without significant storage capacity. But solar is viable across most of Canada in net metering.

But there are several other complementary renewables including wind, geothermal, biomass, ocean energy and hydroelectric.

Choosing which options work together will be site specific.

[shtferbrains]

Canada
See also: Green Energy Act 2009 and WindShare

Ontario introduced a feed-in tariff in 2006, revised in 2009[52] and 2010, increasing from 42¢/kWh to 80.2¢/kWh for micro-scale (≤10 kW) grid-tied photovoltaic projects,[53][54] and decreasing to 64.2¢/kWh for applications received after 2 July 2010. Applications received prior to then had until 31 May 2011 to install the system to receive the higher rate.[55] Ontario's FiT program includes a tariff schedule for larger projects up to and including 10MW solar farms at a reduced rate. As of April 2010, several hundred projects have been approved, including 184 large scale projects, worth $8 billion.[56] By April 2012, 12,000 systems had been installed and the rate decreased to 54.9¢/kWh, for applications received after 1 September 2011.[57] The price schedule as 2013 revised solar prices down to 28-38¢/kWh.[58]
Year Solar Rate (CAD ¢/kWh)
2006 42
2009 80.2
2010 64.2
2012 54.9
2013 28-38
2016 20.9-31.3[59]
2017 19.2-31.1[60]

From wiki, this is an example of rates for locations above 40

[shtferbrains]

Compare California prices.

Much lower production cost but high uptake on program.

California

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a feed-in tariff on 31 January 2008 effective immediately.[126]

In 2010, Marin Energy Authority launched the first Community Choice Aggregate Feed-in Tariff program. The program was updated in November 2012, and now offers 20-year fixed-price contracts, with prices varying by energy source (peak, base-load, intermittent) and progress towards the current program cap of 10-MW.

Municipal utility companies enacted feed in tariff pilot programs in Palo Alto and Los Angeles: Palo Alto CLEAN (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now) is a program to purchase up to 4MW of electricity generated by solar electric systems located in CPAU's service territory. In 2012 the minimum project size was 100 kW. Rates of purchase are between 12.360 ¢/kWh to 14.003 ¢/kWh depending on the length of the contract. The City began accepting applications on 2 April 2012.[127]

On 17 April 2012, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Board of Water and Power Commissioners approved a 10MW FiT Demonstration Program.[128]

As of 1 January 2010 state laws allowed homeowners to sell excess power to the utility. Previously the homeowner would get no credit for over-production over the course of the year. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate the customer was not allowed to install a system that deliberately over-produces thereby, encouraging efficiency measures to be installed after solar installation. This over-production credit was not available to certain municipal utility customers namely Los Angeles Water and Power.

[RWT101]

This is the SCARE THE HELL OUT PEOPLE graph used to promote the gubmint AGW tax grab and transfer.
As you can see it was contrived to accentuate a problem that does not exist.


.

This the actual world temps in F.

It wouldn't raise much munny for anybody would it?

Nothing scary about it at all.

BTW, the original IPCC document was a mistake laden political document, not a scientific one.

It was unscientific in that it virtually ignored any contribution or effect the sun had on the earth.
And secondly, they picked the CO2 as the magic bullet to scare people because it was the only one people could actually do anything about, ie reduce fossil fuel burning. And turn it into a convenient revenue source.
Ironically, it took them 20 years (2008) to finally admit that water vapor was important to the earth's climate.

The sad part of this whole fiasco is that so many tax dollars were mis-allocated to chasing Unicorn farts which in the end does exactly nothing about the AGW problem they said they were solving.
Outright fraud by anyone’s standard.

Cheers.

[burnt]

The hair-head Prime Moron and jet-setting Climate Barbie voice their support for the United Neanderthals report calling for a federal $18/liter carbon tax on fuels by the year 2030. It begins January 1, 2019 for those provinces that have rejected a carbon tax.

And if Canada would CEASE to use all carbon-based fuels, it would make almost ZERO impact in CO2 production worldwide - our cuts would be replaced by China's INCREASE within mere days.

It boggles the mind to think that there are people in positions of power who show the will and intent to destroy our nation to please their globalist controllers.

This is what chuck, grassfarmer, foragefarmer, mustardman and their scurrilous type support.

And some say that Satan is not real...

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-how-much-trudeaus-carbon-tax-will-cost-you https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-how-much-trudeaus-carbon-tax-will-cost-you

"Hold onto your wallet because Justin Trudeau is coming to raid it.

A report out this week on the cancellation of Ontario’s cap-and-trade system revealed the feds will be looking for more of your cash over the next few years, all thanks to the carbon tax.

Sorry, that should say “price on pollution,” which is the latest catchphrase introduced by the Trudeau Liberals to obscure reality.

The Liberals don’t want the term carbon tax being used but rest assured, that is what it will be.

Ontario’s new PC government has scrapped the cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax by another name. The move will save Ontario taxpayers $3 billion over four years or, as the NDP and most of the media put it, lost revenue for the government.

Let them lose it, I’d rather keep it.

Trudeau though isn’t happy with the idea of ordinary people keeping their own money and has promised a carbon tax on any province that doesn’t have their own by Jan. 1, 2019.

Now, how much will it cost you?

That depends on where you live, how you heat your home and how much you drive, but the report out this week says $648 for the “typical” Ontario household.

That figure isn’t far off the projections of University of Calgary professor Jennifer Winter who calculated Trudeau’s tax would cost Ontario homes $707 per year compared to $1,111 in Alberta and $683 in Manitoba.

The highest cost in her report is for Nova Scotia, which faces $1,120 in extra taxes per household under Trudeau’s plan.

In the FAO report, the typical household isn’t determined by household size but energy usage. They calculate 2,000 litres of gasoline, electricity consumption of 9 MWh, natural gas consumption of 2,200 cubic metres.

Let’s put that in terms we can all understand.

That means an increase of 11.1 cents per litre in the price of gas and 9.8 cents per cubic metre on natural gas.

That’s if Trudeau stops at just $50 a ton in 2022.

Chances are that after the next election he will be upping the carbon tax dramatically. Well, if the Liberals win power again.

They are already praising high carbon taxes.

This past week the Liberals were praising a United Nations report that called for a much larger, and global, carbon tax.

“The UN report was clear that we are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, and we are the last generation to be able to act,” Catherine McKenna, Trudeau’s environment minister, told the House of Commons.

This report called for a carbon tax as high as $5,500 per ton by 2030.

That would mean adding about $17 a litre in new taxes for gasoline. That’s before you pay for the gas or account for the current taxes.

Can you imagine paying $18.50 a litre by 2030?

If you believe the UN report, and Trudeau’s Liberals say they do, then we have to assume they will want to raise the tax.

If we don’t raise such taxes the UN report says we will kill the planet and therefore ourselves.

So a higher carbon tax must be in Trudeau’s plans.

We are one year away from an election, an election that will be fought over the carbon tax.

So far Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island have come out against it.

Alberta and New Brunswick are likely to join the fight.

I think it is incumbent upon every premier opposed to the tax and all citizens who want to hold onto their money to ask Trudeau a simple question.

Will the $684 laid out in Ontario’s new report be the top end of what we will pay or does he favour the UN model of a $5,500 per ton carbon tax and gas over $18 a litre?

The answer could be deeply disturbing and might sway more than a few votes."

[grassfarmer]

.........It wouldn't raise much munny for anybody would it?

Nothing scary about it at all.........

What's scary is guys professing to be experts that can't spell simple words.

[Oliver88]

In other words Trudeau, McKenna. UN, chucky/grass/forage/dml, etc would prefer a distribution of wealth from private citizens to the government.
Taxpayers will spend less on fossil fuels with less $ in their pocket.

Good thing provincial governments supporting this farce are now getting booted out of power.....Alberta next.