Electricity again

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I'm not so sure that natural gas fired plants have a future. They generally require storage caverns which equal "protests". Maybe even protests without the power plant part.

Alton Gas, a subsidiary of Calgary based Altagas wanted to create 15 huge natural gas storage caverns near Fort Ellis, Nova Scotia. The process was to flush out salt deposits to create the underground caverns using Shubenacadic River water, a 73 kilometer tidal river. Over a period of two to three years the flushed brine from the carverns was to be pumped back into the tidal river, and out to sea.

Ah, no! The project has been on hold since 2014 over Nova Scotia and Indigenous Peoples environmental concerns on the brine impact on the tidal river.

Oh! cc. Sounds like you have a four car garage and still building on project with your array, as you may have heard, Sask farm acreages don't stay static, and certainly not production wise.

NIMBY's are against everything, solar, wind turbines, natural gas, fracking, oil, hydro. Until they actualy go hungry freezing in the dark, they will continue to oppose everything. See the thread I started a few days ago about this very thing. Progress in this country will be going backwards if they get their way.

Chucks panels may actually look like a smart investment when they manage to completely collapse the grid with their opposition to everything, at least Chuck will still have power for a few hours a day.

[oneoff]

And exactly what will happen if everyone jumps on the bandwagon to use solar generation for their 3 year anticipated demand; and everyone basically expects to freeload on the utility grid upgrades for "storage".

Obviously someone must pay; and it follows other persons, companies and business and industry (or debt) pays those carbon taxes and upgrade costs made for the benefit of those solar producers who saw a way to get cheaper electricity (for themselves)

[oneoff]

Renewable energy reduces carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels so some say

Its also true that solar energy components; don't reproduce themselves without creating some CO2 load. Sand doesn't become glass; minerals don't mine themselves; iron for smelting steel certainly might still needs metallurgical coal (coke). An aluminum production needs a power plant all for itself. Certainly we had better ramp up solar electricity to much more than than is produced in Prairie provinces; or we will actually be dependent on the old standby power producers (or maybe some just think Manitoba Hydro will give their power away to us.)

Not to mention the mothballing of perfectly functional conventional generation facilities; the employment and transport of the solar items to their construction sites; grid upgrades solely due to those many small scale generators; double the number of electrical meters; copper and aluminum wire necessary and a thousand other items that never entered into the calculation of how changing over to an alternate system of 50% renewable energy in Sask by 20XX for instance.

Ignore all above...that's what is happening. Not an ideal situation?????

[chuckChuck]

I am really glad to see that some posters are in favour of a full cost accounting for the economic and environmental costs of energy production and usage. This is what needs to be done so that we can make informed choices on the use of fossil energy and renewable energy sources.

There are a lot of subsidies and externalized costs that never get discussed.

But if your starting point is that human caused climate change is not occurring or it is all good and has no costs, then that discussion would be a waste of time.

[shtferbrains]

You are making sweeping generalizations about renewable energy everywhere. Quite the claim, when many countries in Europe and elsewhere have large amounts of renewable energy already on stream including the state of North Dakota. All a failure? LOL

Have you studied the grids in all the countries in the world that use significant amounts of renewable energy? I doubt it. As usual you have little to back up your mostly political rhetoric.

You are ignoring the impact privatization and deregulation had on Australia's power system. How very convenient to place all the blame on renewables.

We are in the early stages of transitioning away from fossil energy and building more renewable capacity and exploring other forms of renewable energy. And you have already decided its a failure?

30 years ago what kind of telephone were you using and did you use the internet much for banking?

Have you ever heard the phrase" Political Considerations"

That probably best describes what your Liberal handlers are planing to use climate change for during the run up to the election.

Like SF3 says "Look the squirrel"!

We never hear a peep from you for 2 weeks, now you are 50% of the posts.

Hate to take the bait but I have 2 links for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_power_stations

You can sort by size or country using the arrows at the top.

Our plants are to insignificant to list so here they are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_Saskatchewan

Maybe take a minute and study those grids for significance.

[oneoff]

Quote:
But if your starting point is that human caused climate change is not occurring or it is all good and has no costs, then that discussion would be a waste of time.

Unquote

I'll disagree to the statement above at exactly the same time you even remotely consider the corollary

If its human caused; then it makes sense that there were half the humans; then there should be half the effects on your quotes.

I have already conceded and always believed that CO2 concentrations of 400 or so ppm (in atmosheric air that is breathed) is rising and mainly due to release of carbon that wasn't available to past generations. Its also true that plants use that same CO2; and along with sunlight and as long as growing season to their reproductive stages ( or another species) and moisture is available; the plant kingdom will thrive. C02 is removed from the atmosphere and oxygen is replenished. Same applies to the oceans and algae that is maybe even more important. The precise reliable weather and climate data that is currently available was not available much before the age of satellite technology. I believe that the computer fudging and extensive computer analysis may well be seen in same category " as measuring with a micrometer and cutting off with an axe"

The ability to adapt at a quick enough rate is vitally important.



Your, everyone else and my solar energy efforts WILL NOT even be noticed in the big scheme of things. You, I and everyone else may well be making the situation even much worse by expecting and demanding big changes right now.

All I know for sure is that those true to their beliefs would never had produced that extra being (or two or three) that is surely the most important thing they could have done to address the problem you think you identified.

[malleefarmer]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-03-05/solar-power-panel-photovoltaic-limit-shockley-queissner-physics/10862544 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-03-05/solar-power-panel-photovoltaic-limit-shockley-queissner-physics/10862544

[checking]

From your chosen article, "perovskites are often made of toxic materials like lead and they degrade faster than silicon, especially if they get water on them."

I'm sure there will be an environmentalist buy in on that solar panel just for its efficiency.

Can't paint an old farm building with a lead paint base coat, leaded gasoline outlawed, but lead based degrading solar panels are farm kid lickable. Priceless!

[fjlip]

Lets go WIND>>>