Saskatchewan company greenlights Canada's first large-scale geothermal power plant

[chuckChuck]

I have posted many articles without any comments and get lots of "opinions" and personal criticism regardless. Big deal. It doesn't bother me one bit coming from the usual suspects.

And pointing out that this project is a renewable source of electricity that is hard to to dismiss or criticize is fair game in the ongoing discussion.

The point is deep geothermal using hot water is a new option in western Canada it has a lot of potential and some draw backs just like solar, wind, hydro and several other low carbon options have drawbacks.

We are already using all the sources above successfully.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The point is deep geothermal using hot water is a new option in western Canada it has a lot of potential and some draw backs just like solar, wind, hydro and several other low carbon options have drawbacks.

No. It doesn't have any of the drawbacks of wind or solar. It is reliable, predictable, dispatchable, scalable, and doesn't rely entirely on a supply chain completely dependent on a hostile China.

And I don't know why you continue to list hydro as an option, when your own NFU organization is radically opposed to hydro. Why will you never address this hypocrisy?

[chuckChuck]

Geo thermal is renewable and has big advantages over solar and wind.

But solar and wind are also great options in many parts of the world and have their advantages.

One of the advantages of solar is it can be installed by homeowners and rural residents to generate some of their own electricity.

And wind and solar components are being manufactured in several countries of the world.

And I consider hydro a great source of renewable electricity with some downi sdes but Canada already gets 60% of its electricity from hydro.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And wind and solar components are being manufactured in several countries of the world.

And I consider hydro a great source of renewable electricity with some downi sdes but Canada already gets 60% of its electricity from hydro.

Then why don't you use your influence within the NFU to convince them to support hydro? Why do you refuse to admit your own complicity in this issue?

[chuckChuck]

The NFU position on hydro is their position not mine. And I dont even know what position they have and I wouldn't rely on your opinion of what their position is. LOL

And I support hydro if it is already existing and well planned new projects.

[Sheepwheat]

Is nuclear scary, chuck?

[shtferbrains]

Dark blue is China
Light blue is Asia.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The NFU position on hydro is their position not mine. And I dont even know what position they have and I wouldn't rely on your opinion of what their position is. LOL

And I support hydro if it is already existing and well planned new projects.

You don't have to rely on my opinion of what the nfu stands for. They are generous enough to put out countless press releases stating their opposition to hydro.

Was very interesting wording you used. So who is this ubiquitous "they" who is responsible for nfu policy? If a member and former director such as yourself doesn't know how they create policy, then who could possibly be calling the shots? Is it not in any way a democratic process? Where do the marching orders come from?
Or do you no longer get invited to the meetings, being too insufferable even for them?

It is revealing posts such as this one that keep me engaging with you. We can learn so much about how the left thinks and functions.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We are already using all the sources above successfully.

Now that you have defined successfully, it makes the rest of your agenda much clearer.
So it is considered to be a success if an energy generation source is the most expensive in the world, destroys the reliability of an existing grid, results in blackouts and rationing, and only functions with generous mandates and subsidies. And relies almost exclusively on materials and labor (often toxic materials, and slave labour) from hostile nations.

At least you are honest about what you consider to be a success.

[chuckChuck]

You talking about nuclear A5?

Solar and wind the most expensive option? Really?

Says a wanna be republican libertarian farmer who can't tell fact from fiction?

Perhaps take a look at the IEA and Bloomberg and what they say about the costs of renewables before you make stupid claims.

Kind like your idea that we are going to run out of carbon dixode if we don't keep burning fossil fuels?

[Hamloc]

You talking about nuclear A5?

Solar and wind the most expensive option? Really?

Says a wanna be republican libertarian farmer who can't tell fact from fiction?

Perhaps take a look at the IEA and Bloomberg and what they say about the costs of renewables before you make stupid claims.

Kind like your idea that we are going to run out of carbon dixode if we don't keep burning fossil fuels?

I certainly think a geothermal power plant makes far more sense than intermittent power sources like solar and wind, with a much smaller land footprint. But the question is how much of our electricity demand can be met with geothermal?!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I certainly think a geothermal power plant makes far more sense than intermittent power sources like solar and wind, with a much smaller land footprint. But the question is how much of our electricity demand can be met with geothermal?!

The resource is there to easily meet not only all of our electricity needs, but all of our total energy needs. What is not yet known, is if it can be done more economically than the current sources, or if it is sustainable in the long run.
Unlike Iceland and or Hawaii where the heat source is constantly regenerated on useful timescales, our geology is not as generous.