carbon tax

[chuckChuck]

There are few alternatives to using fossil fuels for drying grain if you need supplementary heat. Bio-mass, bio-diesel, bio-gas are options. Using waste industrial heat, using flared gas in some areas is possible.

But are the current drain dryers as efficient as possible? Do farmers need to use dryers every year to start harvest earlier?

Solar systems are used in Alberta on irrigation systems and can be used to provide electricity as well for grain aeration fans.

So there are ways to reduce carbon emissions but none that will eliminate them all together. Unless Scott Moe is planning nuclear powered grain dryers! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There are few alternatives to using fossil fuels for drying grain if you need supplementary heat. Bio-mass, bio-diesel, bio-gas are options. Using waste industrial heat, using flared gas in some areas is possible.

But are the current drain dryers as efficient as possible? Do farmers need to use dryers every year to start harvest earlier?

Solar systems are used in Alberta on irrigation systems and can be used to provide electricity as well for grain aeration fans.

So there are ways to reduce carbon emissions but none that will eliminate them all together. Unless Scott Moe is planning nuclear powered grain dryers! LOL

So why didn't farmers embrace any of those options this fall? Why didn't the CO2 tax motivate farmers to install the ultimate no emissions energy source, nuclear?

[jazz]

So why didn't farmers embrace any of those options this fall? Why didn't the CO2 tax motivate farmers to install the ultimate no emissions energy source, nuclear?

As the GSM starts to take hold over the next decade drying will be a necessity as will using fossil fuels that is if the next 2b people want to eat.

There will be a day when people are begging for oil and gas to be used unabated.

Chuck will just be a 20yr older hypocrit.

[chuckChuck]

So why didn't farmers embrace any of those options this fall? Why didn't the CO2 tax motivate farmers to install the ultimate no emissions energy source, nuclear?

At this point the carbon tax is too small to motivate farmers to change. But we all know if prices for anything rise and there are affordable and effective alternatives consumers will choose those options. Or they will reduce consumption, which is the reason for a carbon tax.

When the price of gas was very high during the peak of commodity boom consumers started choosing more energy efficient vehicles. It was hard to sell pickups. Why? There was no carbon tax at the time, what was the motivation?

Even with a full carbon tax rebate or exemption, farmers are still stuck with a very high cost of drying. Many farmers will look for ways to reduce drying costs through management. There is a case for exemptions or rebates. Rebates are good because the incentives still remain and you are rewarded for reducing carbon emissions by keeping more of the rebate in your pocket.

Just kidding about the nuclear option! LOL

[Oliver88]

As the GSM starts to take hold over the next decade drying will be a necessity as will using fossil fuels that is if the next 2b people want to eat.

There will be a day when people are begging for oil and gas to be used unabated.

Chuck will just be a 20yr older hypocrit.

All the wannabe greenies should be embracing nuclear as a solutions to their perceived emissions “problem”.

If nuclear isn’t okay, than it’s all about $ and control.

[TASFarms]

It’s all about dollars. It’s a Tax. How much more tax can you pay. Tax this tax that tax tax tax

[AlbertaFarmer5]

At this point the carbon tax is too small to motivate farmers to change.

Just kidding about the nuclear option! LOL

You did it Chuck, with just a little help, you identified the problem and the solution all in one sentence. We just need a higher CO2 tax. Will appreciate the gravity of the climate crisis and finally Take action. So, what level of tax will be required, considering there are no alternatives? At what price will farmers simply write the crops off, *nd leave them in the fields?

Too bad you are kidding about nuclear, that was the first intelligent comment you have made on the subject, because if you really are serious about solving a climate crisis, that is the only option we have at this point. So we can now add you to the list of crisis deniers?

[chuckChuck]

BC used their carbon tax to reduce other taxes. So it isn't just about collecting more revenues for government.

Moe and Kenney never mention that a lot of the federal carbon tax is being returned to consumers with a tax credit! That wouldn't fit with their stories about how bad the carbon tax is. LOL

"its just politics" right!

[chuckChuck]

I wouldn't rule out nuclear yet in Saskatchewan. But lets see the cost per kwh and the cost of waste disposal and measure the risks vs benefits before we decide.

I am willing to bet wind and solar with storage, natural gas with CCS, geothermal and imports of hydro from Manitoba will be cheaper than small modular nuclear that is not even off the drawing board yet.

We need to see the cost of nuclear and do a comparison.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I wouldn't rule out nuclear yet in Saskatchewan. But lets see the cost per kwh and the cost of waste disposal and measure the risks vs benefits before we decide.

I am willing to bet wind and solar with storage, natural gas with CCS, geothermal and imports of hydro from Manitoba will be cheaper than small modular nuclear that is not even off the drawing board yet.

We need to see the cost of nuclear and do a comparison.

Did you forget about the climate emergency? We are evidently in the middle of a climate crisis, and suddenly you want to stop and do a cost-benefit analysis ?

For some reason it wasn't necessary to do them for solar or wind, And that was back in the days when we just had climate change, not yet a crisis.

How do you hypocrites expect the rest of us to take this seriously when you obviously don't yourselves?