Wheres Chuck?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

First off the green movement doesn't consider hydro renewable, nor are they interested in anything but solar, wind and battery storage. Phosphorus is certainly a concern long term but what does it have to do with this thread?

Chuck's own NFU is publicly against hydro, acticely campaigning againt site C. No hypocrisy there, tell us that we need to replace fossil fuels with hydro, then block all attempts.
Then Chuck brings up hydrogen as an energy source (instead of storage made from fossil fuels)This is the level of ignorance we are up against, and why it required to left wing propagandist film maker to dumb it down to a level where the true believers can comprehend it.

[wd9]

In simpler terms, renewable energy equals destroyed capital, while non renewable energy expands capital.

That's why Alberta is doing so well..... The net energy recovery ratio has fallen from the 70's from 100 to 20 to 25 for oil in general, shale is 10, ethanol from corn is 1.5. Tar sands shallow 5, steam deep 2.9. With the latest prices, < 1.

If you're a short term planner, your statement is correct. However the trend - and what is actually happening - says the opposite.

Is it hard to accept that unless there is a miraculous energy discovery like oil did 100 years ago, we are screwed based on net energy ratio alone?

[chuckChuck]

One of the concerns in the film about solar and wind is all the energy and resource materials needed for manufacture. That issue is raised often agriville.

Peak phosphorous or a shortage of easily mined phosphorous is another example of the unsustainable track humanity is on as we deplete available resources for an every growing population and growing consumption.

A5 give us any numbers from any utility that shows the additional cost of each type of renewable electricity and their proportional impact on electricity prices. Your opinion is not evidence.

Hydro has a large environmental impact to be sure, but it is still considered renewable and very low in CO2 emissions and part of the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You are wrong if you think hydro facilities are rejected by all environmentalists. And solar and wind are only 2 examples out of several other options.

[chuckChuck]

[QUOTE=AlbertaFarmer5;451156]Chuck, you fail to understand how the burden of proof works. I can show you dozens of examples of renewables causing much higher costs. And that won't prove beyond a doubt that there isn't any example where they are more cost effective, it only takes one counter example to prove my claim wrong.

Well then maybe you should learn to not say this effect is happening "everywhere and to all utilities" because that is clearly wrong.

Give us actual the numbers from the utilities that you have evidence from then. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

And in the case of Ontario you need to look at their generation investments and all their sources of generation including nuclear, gas, coal, wind solar etc. Plus the cost of the distribution system and any other costs incurred including debt repayment.

You must have a lot of time if you are going to attempt this. LOL

[jazz]

Hydro has a large environmental impact to be sure, but it is still considered renewable and very low in CO2 emissions and part of the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You are wrong if you think hydro facilities are rejected by all environmentalists. And solar and wind are only 2 examples out of several other options.

There will never be another hydro dam built in Canada due to the bungled cost overruns and enviro backlash. If the concrete in a wind mill is an unrecoverable environmental cost then so is the concrete in a giant dam.

Thank god Canada has enough oil and gas infrastructure to power our country for the next 500 yrs.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You must have a lot of time if you are going to attempt this. LOL

You're right, it would be much faster to just find a single example of where this free energy has resulted in lower costs to the consumers, than it would be to try to analyze why costs go up in every unique failed experiment.