EV Vehicle recharge

[WiltonRanch]

The natives are being lead astray again. Instead of working with real resource companies to exploit their reserves of minerals and FF, they have now bought into another govt backed scheme that will end in failure.

Just like this Cowessess wind turbine and solar array. Array is always covered by snow and nobody can be bothered to clean it off, wind turbine is always down for some reason. Runs maybe 30% of the time. Probably cant afford the maintenance.

Frog Lake has a lot of oil on their reserve. They also have their own oil companies which employ band members and contributes a lot to their coffers. Not to say they don’t have their problems but they are alright guys and gals who I know up there. Oil and gas employs a lot of First Nations people in this corner of the world.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Maybe it is magic after all.
Can anyone explain this step?
Most of the high-pressure CO2 is reheated in the heat exchanger and returned to the combustor, where the whole cycle begins again
CO2 is most definitely not combustible.
How are they reycling it back into the combustor?

[TOM4CWB]

Maybe it is magic after all.
Can anyone explain this step?
Most of the high-pressure CO2 is reheated in the heat exchanger and returned to the combustor, where the whole cycle begins again
CO2 is most definitely not combustible.
How are they reycling it back into the combustor?

With all the oil/NG reserves at Frog Lake... re-inject C for enhanced recovery; Water hydrolysis from solar/wind/Nuclear energy can yield the pure O2.

This is 'Net Zero Carbon' with clean water for human consumption; is smart development of their own, these folks [Frog Lake Peoples] are to be applauded for initiative and creativeness. God Bless their project!!!

[ColevilleH2S]

Isn't harvesting O2 by cryogenic separation way less energy intensive than by hydrolysis?

[Guest]

Maybe it is magic after all.
Can anyone explain this step?
Most of the high-pressure CO2 is reheated in the heat exchanger and returned to the combustor, where the whole cycle begins again
CO2 is most definitely not combustible.
How are they reycling it back into the combustor?

NG wink, wink
But it’s all good
Long as the woke believe it’s all good
Like green coal , Middle East blood free oil ,emission free solar panels , etc etc
But in all seriousness if they can Pull off it’s all good
It will use NG from Alberta , give some natives hope and a reason to get up in the morning , and it will run 24/7
I wish them luck

[jazz]

Looks like some tesla remorse from the ESG crowd after the cold snap. LOL

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/prairie-tesla-owners-battle-loss-of-heat-amid-extreme-cold-weather-after-software-update-1.5729102

[burnt]

Oopsie, watts this - you can't recharge your EV when you want to?

Oh my, and the gov can use your EV as a power supply when they need it?

6 Jan 2022
EV Chargers To Be Separately Metered

https://iowaclimate.org/2022/01/06/ev-chargers-to-be-separately-metered/

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Oopsie, watts this - you can't recharge your EV when you want to?

Oh my, and the gov can use your EV as a power supply when they need it?

6 Jan 2022
EV Chargers To Be Separately Metered

https://iowaclimate.org/2022/01/06/e...ately-metered/

Looks like Chuck is right again. The utilities have it figured out, and we have nothing to worry about.

They will make sure EV's aren't being charged while the sun doesn't shine, or during peak usage hours, and that they can discharge them to stabilize the grid when the sun isn't shining. There might be a few minutes in between those times when it will be acceptable to charge the EV, unless of course you happen to have a job requiring you to use that EV during those minutes. But at least when you do get to charge it, you will be able to pay your fair share towards road taxes with the promised higher rates for EV charging.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So I asked Chuck many times what source of generation is going to get us to net zero. Never really answered, but did post the CBC article about the natural gas plant that will have no emissions, with no commentary from him. So I assume that is his answer?

By burning pure oxygen, they eliminate any possible NOx emissions. Which is good, those are the actual harmful pollutants, so calling it zero emissions is true if we define emissions as hazardous substances, particulates pollutants etc.

CO2 is still the inevitable by product of combusting hydrocarbons. Chemistry won't allow us to bypass that. IN this case, it is pure CO2, not bulked up with nitrogen and water, not containing any NOx etc. So it is food grade, they can sell it directly to food manufacturers or other industries that use CO2.

But that is certainly not reducing our CO2 footprint in the slightest, if anything, it would increase, since the proccess is energy intensive, producing O2, heating and compressing and transporting the CO2.
The CO2 will still be released into the atmosphere, having no effect on our CO2 footprint. And that market couldn't even come close to consuming all of the CO2 we produce.

Can you explain how this is being touted as net neutral?

[Guest]

Same as chinas coal
It’s all good

[chuckChuck]

So I asked Chuck many times what source of generation is going to get us to net zero. Never really answered, but did post the CBC article about the natural gas plant that will have no emissions, with no commentary from him. So I assume that is his answer?

By burning pure oxygen, they eliminate any possible NOx emissions. Which is good, those are the actual harmful pollutants, so calling it zero emissions is true if we define emissions as hazardous substances, particulates pollutants etc.

CO2 is still the inevitable by product of combusting hydrocarbons. Chemistry won't allow us to bypass that. IN this case, it is pure CO2, not bulked up with nitrogen and water, not containing any NOx etc. So it is food grade, they can sell it directly to food manufacturers or other industries that use CO2.

But that is certainly not reducing our CO2 footprint in the slightest, if anything, it would increase, since the proccess is energy intensive, producing O2, heating and compressing and transporting the CO2.
The CO2 will still be released into the atmosphere, having no effect on our CO2 footprint. And that market couldn't even come close to consuming all of the CO2 we produce.

Can you explain how this is being touted as net neutral?

Why don't you ask the project planners? I would be guessing but its probably going to be utilized or stored. What do you think A5? Sask Power is already doing it. Surely Albertans can copy the Saskys. If it wasn't for immigrants from Saskatchewan, would anything get done in the land of oil and money? LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why don't you ask the project planners? I would be guessing but its probably going to be utilized or stored. What do you think A5? Sask Power is already doing it. Surely Albertans can copy the Saskys. If it wasn't for immigrants from Saskatchewan, would anything get done in the land of oil and money? LOL

So if the CO2 gets utilized, as you say, how is that net zero? It still gets released.
If I dump my used oil on your lawn instead mine, is it no longer considered polluting?
If they are storing it, then this is hardly revolutionary, enhanced recovery by injecting CO2 is already well established and a proven economical method. With the added bonus that we can eventually tap into these reserves to maintain beneficial CO2 levels once we have moved on from Fossil fuels.
You and the cbc article make it sound like there is no CO2 as a byproduct.

[chuckChuck]

So if the CO2 gets utilized, as you say, how is that net zero? It still gets released.
If I dump my used oil on your lawn instead mine, is it no longer considered polluting?
If they are storing it, then this is hardly revolutionary, enhanced recovery by injecting CO2 is already well established and a proven economical method. With the added bonus that we can eventually tap into these reserves to maintain beneficial CO2 levels once we have moved on from Fossil fuels.
You and the cbc article make it sound like there is no CO2 as a byproduct.

Why don't you ask the planners?

We don't know how much is going to utilization or storage. But if it is removed and doesn't go into the atmosphere wouldn't that count?

But you want more CO2 in the atmosphere so why do you care?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why don't you ask the planners?

We don't know how much is going to utilization or storage. But if it is removed and doesn't go into the atmosphere wouldn't that count?

But you want more CO2 in the atmosphere so why do you care?

Because the plant in Laporte Texas that was referenced in your article claims to be selling the CO2. Which means it is emitting just as much CO2 as any conventional gas plant would do it just gets used once before being released back to the atmosphere. I don't believe mother nature differentiates between new and previously owned CO2.

[chuckChuck]

Because the plant in Laporte Texas that was referenced in your article claims to be selling the CO2. Which means it is emitting just as much CO2 as any conventional gas plant would do it just gets used once before being released back to the atmosphere. I don't believe mother nature differentiates between new and previously owned CO2.

Why don't you ask the planners instead of asking someone who is not involved in the project.

Several industries are looking at carbon capture, storage and utilization as a way to get to net zero. its on the list of possible solutions in Canada.

Why are you trying to deny this?