Electric vehicles ... climate change..

[tweety]

Its fascinating how the majority of Agriville hates any attempts at alternative energy. How is anything supposed to be learned without at least trying it? Fortunately this overall attitude will change as your generation is on the way out, not much influence from the retirement home.

And yes, its raining this morning......

[chuckChuck]

We know solar as it is currently used will not replace hydro and fossil fuels. But effective storage systems will change the outlook for solar.

EV Car batteries are getting bigger and better. Since most trips in cars in urban and suburban areas are relatively short, then EVs will be an important step.

If subsidies are the problem then lets look at all the subsidies and hidden costs that each type of energy system has then we can decide which system is the best investment for the future.

Estimates are that Canada subsidizes the fossil fuel industry over $3 billion per year.

No doubt we are going to need many sources of energy production. But painting solar, wind, geo-thermal, tide and wave energy and other sources as not part of the solution to the low carbon future is a mistake.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We know solar as it is currently used will not replace hydro and fossil fuels. But effective storage systems will change the outlook for solar.

What effective storage systems? current storage is only 10 times too expensive to compete with fossil fuels according to MIT researchers( see link below). Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

EV Car batteries are getting bigger and better. Since most trips in cars in urban and suburban areas are relatively short, then EVs will be an important step.

And to add to the absurdity, the chemistry inside of that lithium-ion battery hasn't really changed since Sony introduced it commercially in 1991. Scientists and engineers have worked hard to try to make batteries more powerful, but the industry is now hitting the theoretical limits of battery chemistry. After over 20 years of those approaches making substantial progress, the last five years have delivered only 1% to 2% performance improvements every few years.

Li-IOn batteries are already essentially at their theoretical limits, they need to get cheaper by a factor of 10 just to compete with fossil fuels according to this paper from MIT:
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 How long will that take at 1 to 2 percent, and diminishing as they approach their limit?

part of the solution to the low carbon future is a mistake.

Thinking that there is a low carbon future, or any reason to justify attempting to make one, is the mistake.
From IEA:

Demand for all fuels increased, with fossil fuels meeting nearly 70% of the growth for the second year running. Solar and wind generation grew at double-digit pace, with solar alone increasing by 31%. Still, that was not fast enough to meet higher electricity demand around the world that also drove up coal use.

I added the bold. renewables aren't even keeping up with demand growth, and you expect there to be a carbon free future?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Its fascinating how the majority of Agriville hates any attempts at alternative energy. How is anything supposed to be learned without at least trying it? Fortunately this overall attitude will change as your generation is on the way out, not much influence from the retirement home.

And yes, its raining this morning......

I for one am very excited about many of the alternative energy technologies being considered or tested. However, last I checked, diesel fuel was not considered alternative, and electricity is not an energy source, so I fail to see how this attempt at alternative energy is either alternative or energy?

And unless you are the type who wants to just put alternators on the wheels of your electric car to charge the batteries endlessly, you might want to consider the laws of thermodynamics. They are converting diesel fuel to electricity, then transferring that electricity to a car, where it is converted into chemical energy in batteries, then converted back to electric to transfer it to a motor where it is then converted to mechanical energy. The only thing they are going to learn is that you can't break the laws of thermodynamics, not sure how many times we need to prove that all over again?

[LEP]

[QUOTE=chuckChuck;424813]

Estimates are that Canada subsidizes the fossil fuel industry over $3 billion per year.

I hear this over and over again.

Please inform me on what they are and how much for each?

[6V53]

Hydroelectricity in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada is the world's second largest producer of hydroelectricity after China. In 2014, Canada consumed the equivalent of 85.7 megatonnes worth of oil of hydroelectricity, 9.8% of worldwide hydroelectric consumption. Furthermore, hydroelectricity accounted for 25.7% of Canada's total energy consumption (37.3% of non-oil sources). It is the third-most consumed energy in Canada behind oil and natural gas (30.9% and 28.1% of total consumption, respectively).[1]

Some provinces and territories, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Yukon produce over 90% of their electricity from Hydro. All of the dams with large reservoirs were completed before 1990, since then most development has been run-of-the-river, both large and small. Natural Resources Canada calculates the current installed small hydro capacity is 3,400 MW, with an estimated potential of 15,000 MW.[2] A report on the future of hydroelectricity, suggests the remaining 78% potential will remain undeveloped up to 2050, citing a lack of public acceptance.[3] The widespread usage of hydroelectricity, including being incorporated into electric utility names such as Toronto Hydro or BC Hydro, has led to "hydro" being used in some parts of Canada to refer to electricity in general, regardless of source.[4][5]

Canada has about 75 GW of installed hydroelectric capacity, producing 392 TWh of electricity in 2013.[6]

A Cut and Paste


Dams don't reduce CO2 emissions. Instead, when a river is blocked, water gathers behind the dam, creating an unnatural, stagnant lake that often kills off a lot of the existing ecosystem. The excess water is pushed onto the banks, which are often covered in plant life. These plants are then smothered and die. Bacteria in the water then decompose these plants, generating carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than CO2.

These gases bubble up to the surface of the reservoir and are released into the atmosphere.

Even more of these gases are produced if the upstream river water contains extra nitrogen or phosphorus as a result of fertilizer runoff. These nutrients allow naturally-occurring algae in the river to flourish, but then quickly overwhelm the water’s oxygen resources. As the algae dies, it’s broken down like other organic matter, creating even more of these gases.

Read more on Brainly.in - https://brainly.in/question/7536602#readmore

[Mjolnir]

Hydroelectricity in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada is the world's second largest producer of hydroelectricity after China. In 2014, Canada consumed the equivalent of 85.7 megatonnes worth of oil of hydroelectricity, 9.8% of worldwide hydroelectric consumption. Furthermore, hydroelectricity accounted for 25.7% of Canada's total energy consumption (37.3% of non-oil sources). It is the third-most consumed energy in Canada behind oil and natural gas (30.9% and 28.1% of total consumption, respectively).[1]

Some provinces and territories, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Yukon produce over 90% of their electricity from Hydro. All of the dams with large reservoirs were completed before 1990, since then most development has been run-of-the-river, both large and small. Natural Resources Canada calculates the current installed small hydro capacity is 3,400 MW, with an estimated potential of 15,000 MW.[2] A report on the future of hydroelectricity, suggests the remaining 78% potential will remain undeveloped up to 2050, citing a lack of public acceptance.[3] The widespread usage of hydroelectricity, including being incorporated into electric utility names such as Toronto Hydro or BC Hydro, has led to "hydro" being used in some parts of Canada to refer to electricity in general, regardless of source.[4][5]

Canada has about 75 GW of installed hydroelectric capacity, producing 392 TWh of electricity in 2013.[6]

I would like you to comment on the greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric dams, they aren’t emissions free despite what the government of Quebec claims.

[the big wheel]

I keep hearing this bullshit about how farmers electricity is subsidized. Well here’s a solution give us all solar power I heard today that the program booked up 2 years prior to estimate. So why doesn’t sask power give us all the material we need it would save them money wouldn’t it?
Lmao but but but what about my job?

[chuckChuck]

Big Wheel. I don't have an estimate of the cost of delivering electricity to rural farms vs residential in towns and cities. Saskpower will have those numbers. But the rate residential customers pay is higher than farm customers.

I am not arguing against lower rates for farm customers in fact maybe there is a good argument to lower the farm rate even further. Large industrial consumers get a much lower rate than both farm and residential customers.

Saskpower is under pressure to continue the net metering program. What it will look like is another question.

The interest in solar is large. The rebate and net metering deal from Saskpower was generous. But since many people are willing to spend their own money to invest in what is Saskatchewan's plan to invest in reduced carbon emissions, I think they should get a a generous deal. There are all kinds of subsidies and incentives to the oil industry and other industries to encourage activity, why not solar?

Conservation and improvements in efficiency are also needed.

[tweety]

[QUOTE=LEP;424835]

Estimates are that Canada subsidizes the fossil fuel industry over $3 billion per year.

I hear this over and over again.

Please inform me on what they are and how much for each?

Direct subsidies to oil and gas companies 3.3 Billion. Some of the bigger ones.

Subsidy name Who gives it? Who gets it? How much is it worth?*
Flow-through shares** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 265 million
Direct spending & budgetary transfers*** Canada Oil and gas companies CAD 112 million
Crown royalty reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies CAD 1.162 billion
Tax exemptions for certain fuels & uses in industry Alberta Industry CAD 298 million
Royalty reductions, including deep drilling and infrastructure credits† British Columbia Oil and gas companies CAD 631 million
Reduced tax for aviation fuel Ontario Aviation Industry CAD 292 million
Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agriculture Ontario Agricultural industry CAD 248 million
Fuel tax exemptions and reductions ‡ Quebec Industry and other consumers CAD 301 million

5.3 trillion worldwide. That buys a lot of battery research.