It’s all good , right chucky and friends?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If you start discussing nuclear as a solid O&G replacement, I'll take you seriously. Even better if you put some research into Thorium.

But as long as you keep saying that second bold bit, you're not terribly believable.

You think renewables are the cheapest? And they are less carbonized?

If renewables, specifically wind and solar, were cheap, they wouldn't need gov subsidies and grants to get companies and private people to use them.

I'd also invite you out to see a current wind project being built and the site of a proposed solar farm and you tell me if you think they're not a large ecological impact and that they aren't using much carbon. Keeping in mind everything on the planet is made up of carbon so it's physically impossible to decarbonize anything. There will always be carbon invovled.

And therein lies the problem with demonizing the building block of all life, and virtually all industrial and chemical processes.
Isn't it incredible how this poster can continue to make the erroneous claim about low cost renewables in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I have asked him countless times over the years to provide even a single example of additional wind and solar not resulting in significantly higher costs to the consumer. And in spite of his eagerness to finally prove me wrong about something, he cannot find even a single example to disprove my broad sweeping generalization. But doesn't let that stop him from continuing to propagate the same fake news.

[blackpowder]

Canada currently has 60% of its electricity from hydro. Add in a growing share renewables and nuclear in Ontario and the amount of carbon free electricity is very significant.

This the telling portion of his post.
Ontario and Quebec are Canada after all.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Canada currently has 60% of its electricity from hydro. Add in a growing share renewables and nuclear in Ontario and the amount of carbon free electricity is very significant.

This the telling portion of his post.
Ontario and Quebec are Canada after all.

Except that none of that was carbon free. All of it required massive amounts of carbon intensive concrete and steel at plastics and lubricants, etc and fossil fuel powered machines, and will continue to require these inputs throughout their lifespans

[Guest]

In your graphic if you decarbonize the electricity source for charging EVs the result is 13 tons E. Far less than either hybrids or ICE vehicles.

Even if you charge with fossil fuel sourced electricity, large scale plants are more efficient than ICE engines so there is a reduction in emissions.

Canada currently has 60% of its electricity from hydro. Add in a growing share renewables and nuclear in Ontario and the amount of carbon free electricity is very significant.

Renewables are the cheapest way to generate lots of new electrcity. Storage is becoming a reality in EVs, ammonnia, hydrogen, grid batteries and gas can still used for backup when needed.

Alberta is leading the way on massive amounts of new renewable generation.

Danny is good then , no ?

[chuckChuck]

Danny is good then , no ?

What did Danny have to with it? It was the private sector and a deregulated electricity system.

Wasn't she just elected or did you forget that already?

And no she is not good either! LOL

[chuckChuck]

Except that none of that was carbon free. All of it required massive amounts of carbon intensive concrete and steel at plastics and lubricants, etc and fossil fuel powered machines, and will continue to require these inputs throughout their lifespans

Didn't say anything was carbon free did I? LOL

But hydro has very low emissions compared to coal and gas which also require lots of carbon emissions to extract, build, and transport.

But the nit picker from Alberta will still try to make a lame point from nothing to tell us why EVs wont work.