Renewables Chuck

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Using flared gas near to where it is produced requires less pipelines. A lot of saskatchewan's gas could replace coal.

The BC NDP and Federal Liberals approved a $40 billion LNG facility with a gas pipeline from Dawson Creek to Kitimat.

And building power lines has been just about as much of a battle as pipelines. Canada is full of NIMBY's, natives with greedy lawyers, greens with an agenda, and governments who enable all of them.

[jazz]

Only solar that makes sense is a few panels on all the roofs and some windmills down in the SW where there are no people. Anything else will be blocked by nimbys. You wont even be able to build a hydro dam anymore. Nuke plant, forget it. natural gas generation is the only thing that has a chance.

[oneoff]

Using flared gas near to where it is produced requires less pipelines. A lot of saskatchewan's gas could replace coal.

The BC NDP and Federal Liberals approved a $40 billion LNG facility with a gas pipeline from Dawson Creek to Kitimat.

[oneoff]

"Using flared gas near to where it is produced requires less pipelines. A lot of saskatchewan's gas could replace coal.

The BC NDP and Federal Liberals approved a $40 billion LNG facility with a gas pipeline from Dawson Creek to Kitimat."

Correct me if I was wrong in calculating that the carbon tax cost alone will exceed the retail value of the gas alone (even within two years). How is this going to be a success or competitive on its own merits; and the constraints it faces..

It seems to me that suggesting that investment in natural gas generation is likely to produce high electrical costs; and then the same call to replace it with what is already widely touted as ridiculously cheap renewables.

Not to mention the effects of investers in natural gas generation who will have lost their shirts.

Additionally you don't build gas processing plants for less than tens of millions of dollars. They require pipelines for gathering gas from exponentially declining production from oil fields I am familiar with. It takes probably 30% of input energy to cook the H2S; run the compressors; the cooling fans and heat various processes. But the flare gas should certainly be put to productive uses...or left or returned to te reservoir from which it came.

[oneoff]

What Sask Power should do is encourage multiple uses (eg cogeneration) and not deliberately act as an impediment to access to the grid. Would it hurt them to line up a supplier of that interface built to their specifications that meets what their electrical inspector. It is the same general department that houses Sask Power and those who enforce the electrical code.


Uninformed consumers and crusaders should set aside their axes and other weapons and check which side of their bread is buttered. Building pipelines; or electrical lines or dams should not be impossible or take years, Time for that those shit arguments to end. There is such a thing as turning into a third world country and self destroying yourself and country.

[Guest]

What Sask Power should do is encourage multiple uses (eg cogeneration) and not deliberately act as an impediment to access to the grid. Would it hurt them to line up a supplier of that interface built to their specifications that meets what their electrical inspector. It is the same general department that houses Sask Power and those who enforce the electrical code.


Uninformed consumers and crusaders should set aside their axes and other weapons and check which side of their bread is buttered. Building pipelines; or electrical lines or dams should not be impossible or take years, Time for that those shit arguments to end. There is such a thing as turning into a third world country and self destroying yourself and country.

Already done and no one fired a shot

[Hamloc]

Chuck2, just read an article in the National post you might find interesting. It is written by Philip Cross:"Statscan just exposed how worthless green industries are to Canada's economy". Basically it says green industries including hydro contribute 3.1% to Canada's economy and 1.6% of the jobs and that this hasn't changed much from 2007 to present. Enjoy your day.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck2, just read an article in the National post you might find interesting. It is written by Philip Cross:"Statscan just exposed how worthless green industries are to Canada's economy". Basically it says green industries including hydro contribute 3.1% to Canada's economy and 1.6% of the jobs and that this hasn't changed much from 2007 to present. Enjoy your day.

Another contradiction proponents of green energy constantly trot out is that green energy will create more jobs than the fossil fuels they replace, which may be true, but then they go on to pronounce that green energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels. No one has ever been able to explain that to me, will the green energy jobs be mostly volunteers or minimum wage? Do they think we pay mother nature to give us fossil fuels? What other cost is there to any process of product except the labour required to produce it?

[chuckChuck]

Chuck2, just read an article in the National post you might find interesting. It is written by Philip Cross:"Statscan just exposed how worthless green industries are to Canada's economy". Basically it says green industries including hydro contribute 3.1% to Canada's economy and 1.6% of the jobs and that this hasn't changed much from 2007 to present. Enjoy your day.

I would hesitate saying green jobs are worthless because they only contribute 3.1% GDP to the economy.

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting only contributes 1.8% of GDP. Does that make them worthless?

I saw the anti green biased opinion piece in the NP and he didn't account for all the spinoff jobs just like 1.8% for agriculture doesn't account for all the spin off jobs from agriculture and forestry.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I would hesitate saying green jobs are worthless because they only contribute 3.1% GDP to the economy.

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting only contributes 1.8% of GDP. Does that make them worthless?

I saw the anti green biased opinion piece in the NP and he didn't account for all the spinoff jobs just like 1.8% for agriculture doesn't account for all the spin off jobs from agriculture and forestry.

Case where math skills would've come in handy for you Chuck. Here was all the evidence you needed to prove Your previous assertions about Renewable energy being cost-effective. In stead, you dismiss the article has green bashing and biased and missed the point completely.

[furrowtickler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

[furrowtickler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

Some viewing for the Christmas holidays .... enjoy the holidays chuck 👍😎