No more cheap reliable coal fired generation in AB.

[jazz]

Sask has the lowest debt per capita in the country, why would we want to ruin that trying to build hydro dams that never pay for themselves.

NG generation pays off in 3 yrs. Our coal plants paid themselves off decades ago. Nuclear will take 10 yrs to permit. Small Modular nuke tech has been used on subs for 50 yrs and for some reason, we cant get one built until 2035.

[furrowtickler]

It’s the frantic push of the climate agenda and attack on “fossil fuel CO2” that’s going to leave some areas in a very bad spot for energy. Just as predicted, they are forcing the cart way before the horse .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Sask has the lowest debt per capita in the country, why would we want to ruin that trying to build hydro dams that never pay for themselves.

NG generation pays off in 3 yrs. Our coal plants paid themselves off decades ago. Nuclear will take 10 yrs to permit. Small Modular nuke tech has been used on subs for 50 yrs and for some reason, we cant get one built until 2035.

Because the economics of using natural gas for power generation have changed irreversibly recently.. with Russian supplies coming offline, possibly permanently in some cases, we will be selling ours on the world market at world prices, sooner or later.
The glut of essentially free gas as a byproduct is over for the foreseeable future.
This will improve the economics of hydro and nuclear. We can export the fossil fuels, and consume the electricity at home.

As usual, government enforced programs are completely out of sync with reality. We should have been burning the excess gas for electricity for the past decade, while building out our export infrastructure and keeping the coal in the ground for when we need it. Instead we have done exactly the opposite.

[TASFarms]

That actually does make sense. There is more mass of CO2 as a byproduct than there is hydrocarbon to start with.
Combustion liberates the H which weigh very little, then the C is bonded to two Oxygen which came from the air, which are much heavier than the H's.

Normally if your paying for something by weight the scale has to be calibrated. I don’t think you would be able to weight the amount your getting carbon taxed on

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It’s the frantic push of the climate agenda and attack on “fossil fuel CO2” that’s going to leave some areas in a very bad spot for energy. Just as predicted, they are forcing the cart way before the horse .

And to guess which notorious fossil fuel exporters are laughing all the way to the bank right now, after foisting this green scam upon us?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Normally if your paying for something by weight the scale has to be calibrated. I don’t think you would be able to weight the amount your getting carbon taxed on

Well I certainly agree that the entire notion of taxing plant food is ridiculous. The math behind calculating emissions is valid. Basic stoichiometry such as we learned in high school can figure out how much CO2 is released from a certain amount of hydrocarbon being combusted.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

16kWh/100km tesla model 3
6L/100km Vw Jetta
6L x 8.9 kWh = 53.4 kWh/100km

These are highway numbers which favour the ICE because they are more efficient on the highway and EV are more efficient in city driving.

Highway conditions the ICE uses 3.3 times more energy.

Let’s say we are charging the EV with a diesel generator. 16 kWh requires 6.4L of diesel. (0.4L/kwh) So basically a diesel generator is a really bad way to charge an EV. 4 kWh goes in and 1 kWh comes out. 1L of diesel is the equivalent of 10 kWh.
6.4L @ $1.60L = $10.24
16 kWh @ $0.20/kwh = $3.20

So why would you use diesel to power your grid? Remote area with no infrastructure. Field, BC for example runs entirely on a diesel generator.

Thank you for doing the math. We are back on the same page again now. When you take into account the 25% efficiency of converting diesel fuel into electricity, it ends up more expensive than burning the gasoline directly.
Now back to my original premise, that the CO2 numbers you presented for Northwest Territories, are completely out to lunch. As you just pointed out, you have to burn almost the same amount of fuel either way, and as I pointed out, the CO2 emissions per unit of energy between Diesel and gasoline are essentially the same, then there's no possible way that a primarily diesel fuel powered grid has seven and a half times less CO2 emissions than a gasoline powered car.
Yet this information is apparently on a government of Canada website?
It is being promoted by a very enthusiastic supporter of electric vehicles without question.
Almost makes me wonder what other questionable math is being used to justify the supposed energy transition.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

Thank you for doing the math. We are back on the same page again now. When you take into account the 25% efficiency of converting diesel fuel into electricity, it ends up more expensive than burning the gasoline directly.
Now back to my original premise, that the CO2 numbers you presented for Northwest Territories, are completely out to lunch. As you just pointed out, you have to burn almost the same amount of fuel either way, and as I pointed out, the CO2 emissions per unit of energy between Diesel and gasoline are essentially the same, then there's no possible way that a primarily diesel fuel powered grid has seven and a half times less CO2 emissions than a gasoline powered car.
Yet this information is apparently on a government of Canada website?
It is being promoted by a very enthusiastic supporter of electric vehicles without question.
Almost makes me wonder what other questionable math is being used to justify the supposed energy transition.

Well I just used numbers on google but calculating generator emissions has a lot of variables because it depends on how loaded the generator is. I do agree that using a diesel generator to power EV is idiotic. Now as far as the co2 numbers for NWT I'm actually having a hard time figuring out what their grid mix is but this is the most recent one I could find....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well I just used numbers on google but calculating generator emissions has a lot of variables because it depends on how loaded the generator is. I do agree that using a diesel generator to power EV is idiotic. Now as far as the co2 numbers for NWT I'm actually having a hard time figuring out what their grid mix is but this is the most recent one I could find....

[ATTACH]10441[/ATTACH]

Well that chart completely contradicts their chart you posted earlier in this same thread which indicated 57% of their electricity comes from diesel fuel.
It's almost as if you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Or that 95% of all statistics are made up...
Either way, if folks wanting to push renewable energy and electric vehicles can't even agree on what our current electricity mix is, or what the CO2 footprint is, how much Faith does that give you in their Grand plans to replace that energy with something else completely?

[shtferbrains]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"