EV Vehicle recharge

[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?