In defense of sustainable energy.

Commodity Marketing

Tools

In defense of sustainable energy.

Feb 7, 2018 | 12:27 1 This is not a global warming thread, let’s leave that out.
For some reason the issue of energy became very black and white, if you believe in CAGW, you have to be anti-oil and pro-renewable energy. Alternately, those of us who don’t subscribe to the Catastrophic, or Anthropogenic adjectives, automatically are presumed to be anti-environment, anti-progress and pro-oil.

Well, I for one believe there is a convincing case for the need for sustainable energy without invoking the dreaded climate change. I don’t say renewable, because an energy source can be renewable without being sustainable( think whale oil) or sustainable without being renewable ( think Thorium or other abundant minerals, assuming the waste processing is sustainable). I use the word sustainable, because the word alternative is a nonsense PC feel good word that doesn’t mean anything, much like alternative lifestyle.
First off, I greatly appreciate all the benefits of fossil fuels; energy dense, cheap to obtain and process, portable, indefinitely storable, large reserves, one only needs to look at the progress human kind has made since harnessing fossil fuels to appreciate their value. I’ve often said they could be 10 times their current price and still be dirt cheap compared to anything that came before them. But, as the name fossil indicates, they are not renewable on any reasonable time frame. Given growth rates of energy consumption, even if we were to double known reserves tomorrow, it would hardly gain another generation worth of supply. While recent discovery and extraction techniques may make fossil fuels appear limitless once again, so is our demand for energy, at some point the sad reality that we have consumed hundreds of millions of years’ worth of stored solar energy in just a few generations, and left very little for the next generation will hit home. Then, at the time when we need energy the most, to adapt, to research, to retrofit, and to build the infrastructure for whatever will replace it, we will have the least quantity, and economically viable energy to do it.
Next justification is that extracting, processing and burning fossil fuels does create a host of really nasty by-products. While it is true that the advances in standard of living and health care afforded by this energy fuelled society have more than outweighed the side effects on our health, as indicated by increasing life spans et al., but imagine how much healthier we could be when our world is not full of: Carcinogenic diesel fuel exhaust, carcinogenic gasoline, lead lingering in everything from decades of leaded fuel, mercury and other heavy metals, Benzene( ever wondered why full serve gas stations are disappearing, the fumes from one fuel up far exceed the occupational limit for benzenes, it is very serious stuff) and a host of other inevitable toxins that permeate the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat. Much of this stuff will be with us for generations to come, even if we stopped producing it today, lead is a perfect example. Regardless of emissions controls, these things are inevitable by-products, or the products themselves, we are doing a much better job of minimizing their release, but they will still exist at some point in the processing or combustion process, or need to be stored indefinitely.
The modern oil and gas industry in the western world is beyond paranoid about their environmental footprint, although the same cannot always be said for all regions or historical production. The legacy of those will be with us for generations to come. If we let it reach the point where we are trying to recover every last drop regardless of cost, there will no longer be the profit, nor the surplus energy to safely decommission the existing infrastructure, corrosion, and tectonics will wreak havoc, we need an exit plan while we still have excess energy and resources.
We will likely still need fossil fuels for some uses, even after something better has replaced it for our everyday uses. If you need to store vast amounts of energy for backup power in the arctic, and need to fly it in, fossil fuel may still fit the bill, but if we extract all of the economic reserves before looking for something better, that would not be feasible.
Industry will continue to need lubricants long after the internal combustion engine is extinct. Currently 6% of oil ends up as lubricants.
Asphalt, I can’t think of a scenario where asphalt from hydro carbons won’t be necessary, even if we all fly our own personal flying machines everywhere, they will still need to park, land, and take off.
Long after we don’t need oil for energy, we will most likely continue to need it feedstock for most synthetic products, possibly even for sustenance. Our grandkids might think we were recklessly insane to be burning this resource in our cars at sickeningly low efficiencies when they need it to create the necessities of life.
So, back to looking for sustainable solutions. So far, human progress has been fueled by progressively better energy sources, cheaper, denser, safer, easier, more reliable etc. We are currently contemplating and experimenting with the first giant step backwards in progress since we first harnessed energy. Currently according to our governments and many academics, the best we can look forward to is replacing fossil fuel with much more expensive and unreliable wind and solar (so far). As much as I believe we need to ration our use of fossil fuels for the reasons I listed above (and many more), I truly hope that we can find solutions that also work on a calm December day in northern Canada while also being cheaper, denser, safer etc. than fossil fuels.

Continued in next post. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 12:27 2 Continued from previous post

As far as I know we only have three potential energy sources:
1)The sun, which includes wind, all types of solar, tide, biofuels, hydro, all fossil fuels, wood, dung, peat, draft animals, slaves, algae, bacteria, lightning; basically almost everything we’ve tried so far;
2)Atomic energy of all types
3)Geothermal ( which is still atomic energy, but the reaction and heat production part has been taken care of safely out of reach)

Any of which easily have the potential ability to power a planet with 9 billion people living at western standards of living if we can find an efficient and sustainable way to harness them.
Sun In-spite of the hype and the investment, wind and solar are still virtually insignificant. It seems like we have latched onto these two at the expense of all other options, and are willing to risk it all on their success of failure. In principle, they seems like the only reasonable way to capture the suns energy, but so far are failing miserably at doing it at scale or cost efficiently. While I will acknowledge that their capital costs are becoming competitive, storage costs are so far not. Would it not make more sense to be investing in energy storage research, or improving transmission losses and integrating the grid worldwide such that places with daylight send power to those in the dark, than it does to keep subsidizing non profitable stand-alone wind and solar installations? Then, when the infrastructure is in place to fully utilize the intermittent energy, the free market will build them because they will be profitable. Perhaps they are the answer, we have just put the cart before the horse. Are there other ways of capturing solar energy that are being ignored while governments picked winners (wind turbines and solar panels) and losers, or are those really the best possible method of harvesting sun? These are some hair brain concepts, that come to mind: Consider the potential energy in the mid-Atlantic current(and many others), particularly at northern latitudes where the cold dense water is sinking, has the advantage of not being in anyones backyard, and not intermittent, just very technically difficult to harness. What about temperature differentials, even where there isn’t enough sunlight for solar panels. Look at the huge temperature swings we get this time of year, can easily be 20 degrees C throughout the day, much more in the sun. Could that power a slow motion heat pump? Look at the expansion force water has when it freezes, can the freeze thaw cycle be captured on a large scale in some efficient way? As a farmer, I ask, is it more efficient to capture sunlight with a plant using photosynthesis or a silicone panel using electrons, and is there a more direct way to harvest the energy from that plant than what we do now?

Atomic power has been almost entirely a by-product of the nuclear arms race. And developed a bad reputation almost entirely as a result, there were and are better options. As we move beyond that, if molten salt reactors or thorium etc. or others yet to be discovered are developed, will societies ever embrace atomic power again, or is it tainted forever? Could progress be made in nuclear waste management, perhaps a biological means of converting it to something safer? If atomic energy research received as much funding as subsidized wind and solar installations have received would we have drastic breakthroughs by now?
Geothermal, Iceland is at 25%, big island of Hawaii is at 20%. Doesn’t get much more sustainable than that. Unfortunately, most places on earth have a long way to drill to reach that kind of heat, or at least enough heat to be worthwhile. Then require a lot of energy to pump water (Hawaii’s refills itself from the ocean then boils it and sends it up all by itself). Has the progress in oil and gas drilling made geothermal any more feasible? Are there more direct ways of capturing that heat? Are there ways to improve the efficiency of shallow geothermal which is in use around here, perhaps a combination of solar and geothermal, with the geothermal also acting as energy storage for the solar, could have some synergies? What about vents on the ocean floor, we now have drilling technology to drill deep under the ocean, the water is already there.

Are we currently wasting not only precious non-renewable (land, copper, rare earth metals etc) resources building renewable energy for almost no energy return, while simultaneously burning through our irreplaceable reserves of fossil fuels like they have no end, while a better solution has yet to be found simply because we misdirected our resources? If we find a solution, will we have enough energy and time to implement it? Is this as good as it gets, and are we doomed to a future where expensive unreliable energy replaces fossil fuels as they deplete, and for the first time in modern history, progress goes backwards? Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 12:53 3 On a related note. Ill informed consumers have been led to believe that energy consumption is no different than energy production, and believe that electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars, trucks, etc. will magically solve an energy production problem. Equally energy illiterate governments have gone so far as to schedule bans on internal combustion engines, and are spending copious quantities of tax dollars to force this implementation against the free markets will. I have almost nothing good to say about infernal combustion engines, when compared to electric and would be gladly replace every last one I own with reliable, simple, maintenance free, efficient electric motors, which always start at 40 below, and have torque eliminating the need for transmissions, no exhaust fumes, no need to warm up and cool down, no emissions controls necessary etc. Unfortunately, there are just a few pieces of the puzzle still missing:
-Cheap reliable and sustainable electricity production. I'll even add the loaded word clean.
-Cheap, reliable, sustainable, energy dense, safe, quick charging, temperature independent on board energy storage that doesn't require more rare earth metals than the earth contains.
-A grid capable of connecting the two.

Why have we put the cart before the horse once again? Forcing uneconomical electric cars onto the market with massive subsidies, instead of investing that same amount of capital into solving the three problems above first? We have proven that electric drives are feasible for decades already, in locomotives, mining, forklifts, golfcarts etc. Tesla et al. don't need more incentives(from our tax dollars) to put that existing technology into a car and combine it with existing cell phone battery technology. Why not spread that money among electricity generators, distributors and storage researchers? When those pieces are in place electric cars won't need subsidies, us consumers won't be able to replace our antiquated Internal Combustion engines with electric machine fast enough, given all the advantages.

Or better yet, quit taking tax dollars away from productive segments of society to give to parasitic schemes such as most current green energy projects, and the productive members of society will have the resources to solve these problems on their own, instead of allowing scientifically illiterate governments and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers?
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Feb 7, 2018 at 14:33.
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 13:48 4 Best sustainable energy is coal. Lots of it and no end in sight. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 13:52 5 Name:  DVMZ06nWsAAReFM.jpg_large.jpg
Views: 395
Size:  18.9 KB
pretty self explanatory for all except the small vocal minority alarmists trolling this website Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:05 6
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
Best sustainable energy is coal. Lots of it and no end in sight.
I tend to agree, of everything we have tried so far, coal has been by far the most successful, we have also quite successfully cleaned up the actual particulate pollution (not to be confused with capturing harmless CO2 which is a costly energy inefficient process)from its combustion process. But is it actually sustainable?

From the world coal association:


There are an estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 150 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 50 and 52 years at current production levels.

https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found

Proven coal reserves are not the same as recoverable resources, which would be much smaller, and there is no indication that rates of energy consumption growth are going to stop, so 150 years is likely not attainable. There is a good possibility that someone born today could still be alive 150 years from now when those (currently known) reserves are exhausted. I don't consider one human lifetime of resource remaining to be sustainable? If we were to switch to all electric cars trucks tractors as the powers that be want us to, that 150 years suddenly shrinks to a fraction of that. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:11 7
Quote Originally Posted by tmyrfield View Post
Name:  DVMZ06nWsAAReFM.jpg_large.jpg
Views: 395
Size:  18.9 KB
pretty self explanatory for all except the small vocal minority alarmists trolling this website
I'm playing devils advocate here, but just because solar and wind are such obvious failures as of today, doesn't mean that we should give up on ALL potentially sustainable energy sources, when we can be 100% certain that someday we will need them if we hope to maintain our current energy dependent lifestyles. If you read my diatribe, I'm suggesting that we should be investing in researching any and all potential sources of sustainable energy, instead of wasting precious time and resources building wind turbines and solar panels which do not currently make economic sense in most situations. But perhaps someday they will when improvements to storage and grid have been made. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:19 8
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
I'm playing devils advocate here, but just because solar and wind are such obvious failures as of today, doesn't mean that we should give up on ALL potentially sustainable energy sources, when we can be 100% certain that someday we will need them if we hope to maintain our current energy dependent lifestyles. If you read my diatribe, I'm suggesting that we should be investing in researching any and all potential sources of sustainable energy, instead of wasting precious time and resources building wind turbines and solar panels which do not currently make economic sense in most situations. But perhaps someday they will when improvements to storage and grid have been made.
I agree 100% never quit improving and learning , but dont throw thebaby out with the bathwater like theyre doing right now .! Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:20 9 Well presented thread , thx A5, common sense hopefully remains at play here from both sides of the debate. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:25 10 agree alberta the most important aspect of electrification of becoming the main power source is the storing of this energy. Ease of transporting it and 'battery live' Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:49 11 From Alberta5
"Or better yet, quit taking tax dollars away from productive segments of society to give to parasitic schemes such as most current green energy projects, and the productive members of society will have the resources to solve these problems on their own, instead of allowing scientifically illiterate governments and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers?"

So are you also in favour of cutting subsidies to fossil energy producers? The estimate I believe is 3 billion per year in Canada. And that doesn't include external costs such as environmental damage, pollution, and additional health care costs. Reply With Quote
GDR
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:51 12 I think part of the future might be more small scale production and less waste. Not sure how grid ties would work though. Every day we see constant waste in our lives, energy is no different. Lots of oil wells venting gas cause it don't pay to pipe it, put a mini generator on site, every manure lagoon capture the methane released, on site generation from that. Bio digester for organic waste. Radiators on engines just take the heat produced and disperse it, why not find a way to harness it. Harness static electricity. Compression force of gravity and weights? Even exercise machines, millions of people use everyday and there energy is just wasted when could be small scale generation. Gotta be someway to generate electricity from highway traffic be it friction, wind something. The solar shingles they've come up with seem smart compared to regular solar panels. No end to small scale ideas.

On a large scale basis I like ethanol production, may be biased as a farmer but seems to make sense and by products are valuable.

When all else fails just take a lesson from Marty McFlie and catch some lightning bolts! Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:52 13 Meanwhile, saving fossil fuels by converting much of today's transport to almost all rail and (tic) water by wind and solar. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:56 14
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
From Alberta5
"Or better yet, quit taking tax dollars away from productive segments of society to give to parasitic schemes such as most current green energy projects, and the productive members of society will have the resources to solve these problems on their own, instead of allowing scientifically illiterate governments and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers?"

So are you also in favour of cutting subsidies to fossil energy producers? The estimate I believe is 3 billion per year in Canada. And that doesn't include external costs such as environmental damage, pollution, and additional health care costs.
I am in favour of removing subsidies from all industries with the exception of well focused research. I especially include farmers in that.

I was looking forward to your review of my post, And that is the worst you can find to find fault with? Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 15:00 15
Quote Originally Posted by GDR View Post
I think part of the future might be more small scale production and less waste. Not sure how grid ties would work though. Every day we see constant waste in our lives, energy is no different. Lots of oil wells venting gas cause it don't pay to pipe it, put a mini generator on site, every manure lagoon capture the methane released, on site generation from that. Bio digester for organic waste. Radiators on engines just take the heat produced and disperse it, why not find a way to harness it. Harness static electricity. Compression force of gravity and weights? Even exercise machines, millions of people use everyday and there energy is just wasted when could be small scale generation. Gotta be someway to generate electricity from highway traffic be it friction, wind something. The solar shingles they've come up with seem smart compared to regular solar panels. No end to small scale ideas.

On a large scale basis I like ethanol production, may be biased as a farmer but seems to make sense and by products are valuable.

When all else fails just take a lesson from Marty McFlie and catch some lightning bolts!
Yes, so many potential sources of energy and efficiency gains, ignored while we heavily subsidize turbines, solar panels and electric car production, at the expense of all other potential sources.

I know it is minor in the big scheme of things, but when I see an electric motor driving a treadmill, not the other way around, I can't help but shake my head at where societies priorities are. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 15:20 16 I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 16:12 17
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic.
Have you ever answered the question of how far you are toward getting off the fossil-fuel dependent grid?

You wouldn't be just another progressive fan-boy enjoying the status quo while saying how harmful it is, would you chucky? (The hallmarks of Gore, Suzuki and climate barbie, you know?)

Where is your investment showing your personal commitment to the ideals you tout? Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 16:14 18
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic.
Wrong chucky , it’s the lack of evidence that carbon tax will change the climate. And that most of us are already paying a very steep price to reduce emissions with tier 4 emissions on equipment . And have already made huge strides in reducing fuel usage with reduced tillage. Both direct benefits to the environment.
A carbon tax is an excuse for wealth transfer with no direct proof of helping the environment. It really has no climate purpose at all when it is to be given all back to the provinces . This is to be just a slush fund for governments to play with in reality. So it serves no purpose as to its intentions.
If the carbon tax was going to help change the environment then it may be workable . But it’s not , under their own admission at high UN levels. They have openly admitted that it’s a wealth transfer scheme targeted extract wealth from energy producing economies and industries who depend on fossil fuels. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 16:42 19 Chuck"
Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage."

This is yet another example of an easily led consumer confusing energy consumption with energy production. Hydrogen fuel cells are not a means of creating energy, but rather a very energy intensive process of converting energy forms and storing it. Creating Hydrogen fuel requires far more energy than can be returned. All due to those nasty laws of thermodynamics. But perhaps Toyota has circumvented those silly laws...
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Feb 7, 2018 at 23:29.
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 19:23 20
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
Wrong chucky , it’s the lack of evidence that carbon tax will change the climate. And that most of us are already paying a very steep price to reduce emissions with tier 4 emissions on equipment . And have already made huge strides in reducing fuel usage with reduced tillage. Both direct benefits to the environment.
A carbon tax is an excuse for wealth transfer with no direct proof of helping the environment. It really has no climate purpose at all when it is to be given all back to the provinces . This is to be just a slush fund for governments to play with in reality. So it serves no purpose as to its intentions.
If the carbon tax was going to help change the environment then it may be workable . But it’s not , under their own admission at high UN levels. They have openly admitted that it’s a wealth transfer scheme targeted extract wealth from energy producing economies and industries who depend on fossil fuels.
not a chance in hell it will all go back to provinces, two thirds will create more jobs in Quebec or new. Brunswick Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 23:43 21
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.
There are a lot of places where they make sense, most locations between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn for example can make solar energy quite reliably year round. Wind turbines in southern Alberta have respectable uptime due to consistent winds. Places with no grid power source are obvious candidates, saw a bunch of houses in Hawaii with no access to grid using entirely solar power, I don't suppose they know what a block heater is though...

Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.
No, I don't think that is true of anyone I know, or from what I read on here. Most of us want to know that when it is 40 below outside, and we need our chore tractors to start, and stock waters to not freeze up, and heat and light in our houses to work, that it will be reliable and affordable. In these northern climes, we already face enough obstacles to our competitiveness without forcing us to pay exhorbitant costs for supposed green energy. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 00:51 22
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I have said many times we will need to have hydro, gas, nuclear, coal for awhile yet.

Solar and wind are already significant contributors to the grid in many parts of the world. They are getting cheaper fast. Cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas in many parts of the world. They are growing very fast. They will get built where it makes sense.

Storage systems are already being worked on. Batteries and other methods. Canadian companies are already investing in storage systems.

Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage.

Subsidies are still a valid way of getting research and development and implementation of new technology started. The oil sands received significant development subsidies from governments. They continue to receive subsidies, low royalty rates, and tax breaks. Those are no different than giving subsidies to develop renewable energy, or storage projects.

Its good that you started this discussion but I still get the feeling most people on Agriville don't believe in any change to the status quo. They want the oil industry to provide jobs for ever, which it can't do.

The negativity on Agriville against any new ideas or support for looking at other energy sources is lacking to put it mildly, if not toxic.
My favourite radio talk show had an interesting guest this morning. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the research organization he represented(wasn't a right wing think tank lol). Anyway. What they were studying was the practicality and cost of maximizing renewable electrical sources, using electric heat in homes instead of natural gas and using electric cars instead of gas and what changes this would requires to the amount of electrical generation capacity. They also were looking at how these changes would help meet GHG emission reduction targets.

As far as wind and solar, good contributor to emission reductions but we will still require a stable base load. Provinces like Quebec with large hydro resources could achieve very low near zero emission electrical generation. In Alberta base load would come from natural gas. Anyway, the numbers that stuck in my head. We would require almost 3 times present generation capacity to power all the electric car generating stations and heat electrically. The increased electrical demand and cost of additional infrastructure would increase electricity costs an additional 33% over cost of inflation increases of 2% a year. In Alberta all these changes would only get us 16% of the way to the emission reduction targets set out in the Paris agreement.

Went on an Atco calculator sight. For a new 2000 sq. foot house built in Alberta, average cost to heat with natural gas(at what I pay which is $6.75 a gigajoule including carbon tax) would be $600 a year. Same home heated with electricity( at what I pay which is 20 cents a kwh) it would cost just over $3900 a year.

So Chuck I am not opposed to advances in technology but I am against government's making bad poorly thought out decisions prompted by environmentalists who obviously despise the oil industry. FYI you never did say what you would apply a carbon tax to or how much carbon tax you would be willing to pay per tonne. Would you tax methane, N02, as a farmer would you be able to compete? Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:40 23 So its okay to subsidize the fossil energy business and usage? No responses from the arm chair experts on that yet.

Germany. Denmark, England have all invested alot in wind and some solar.

And here in Conservative Saskatchewan, defender of the oil industry in your own backyard you completely ignore what Saskpower is planning under the watch of Brad Wall and Scott Moe?

If this technology doesn't work why is it happening in Saskatchewan of all places?



http://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/renewables-roadmap/

"We're committed to managing emissions as we rebuild the electricity system to meet the needs of our growing province. We've set a target of 50% of generation capacity from renewables by 2030. To achieve this goal, we will double the percentage of renewables in our supply mix in just 15 years.

Meeting this target will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions – about 40% below 2005 levels. It will also provide opportunities for private sector power producers.

We’ll add 60 megawatts (MW) of utility scale solar generation by 2021.

"The launch of Saskatchewan’s utility-scale solar electricity generation procurement marks another major milestone for renewable energy in Canada. Saskatchewan’s world-class solar energy resource combined with significant cost declines in recent years make solar energy a more cost-effective option for the province than ever before. The time is right for Saskatchewan to begin to explore the role that solar energy will play in the province’s future supply-mix."

- John Gorman, President & CEO, Canadian Solar Industries Association

Our Plans for Solar

As part of our plans to power a sustainable future, we’ve developed a phased approach to adding utility scale solar projects to our provincial grid.
This involves a combination of:

Our Goal for Wind Power

Our goal is to have 30% wind power capacity by 2030.
Timeline for Procurement

As we plan the procurement process, we’re reviewing our policies for soliciting projects from independent power producers to make sure our processes follow best practice and fairness standards and meet the needs of power producers and other stakeholders involved. We’ll post more details as we develop our plans." Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:45 24
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
So its okay to subsidize the fossil energy business and usage? No responses from the arm chair experts on that yet.
If you bothered to read the responses, I did respond to that a few posts further up. I am against subsidizing any industry, with the exception of research. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:46 25
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Chuck"
Toyota has said zero emissions by 2050 on all its cars and factories using hydrogen fuel cells. If they come anywhere close to achieving this it will revolutionize the automobile and energy usage."

This is yet another example of an easily led consumer confusing energy consumption with energy production. Hydrogen fuel cells are not a means of creating energy, but rather a very energy intensive process of converting energy forms and storing it. Creating Hydrogen fuel requires far more energy than can be returned. All due to those nasty laws of thermodynamics. But perhaps Toyota has circumvented those silly laws...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/521671/cheap-hydrogen-from-sunlight-and-water/
Cheap Hydrogen from Sunlight and Water
Stanford researchers say new materials could help lower the cost of producing fuel with solar energy.

by Kevin Bullis November 14, 2013

Hydrogen generated using sunlight could replace fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation.

By making a solar photovoltaic material more resilient, researchers may have found a way to make artificial photosynthesis—that is, using sunlight to make fuel—cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

If you want hydrogen to power an engine or a fuel cell, it’s far cheaper to get it from natural gas than to make it by splitting water. Solar power, however, could compete with natural gas as a way to make hydrogen if the solar process were somewhere between 15 and 25 percent efficient, says the U.S. Department of Energy. While that’s more than twice as efficient as current approaches, researchers at Stanford University have recently developed materials that could make it possible to hit that goal. The work is described in the journal Science. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:47 26 Once again, chucky, we are interested in learning what your actions have been toward reducing your dependency on carbon fuels as well as your personal plans.

Seems like you keep avoiding the questions that have been repeatedly put to you.

Surely you are not just another socialist who loves to talk about it but expects everyone else to make the changes, are you? Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:51 27 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/30/future-pv-the-feasibility-of-solar-powered-hydrogen-production/
Future PV: The feasibility of solar-powered hydrogen production

There is a solid business case to combine PV plants with electrolyzers, as generation costs are low enough to competitively produce hydrogen as a fuel, says Bjørn Simonsen of NEL Hydrogen. He will speak at pv magazine’s Future PV event at SPI in Las Vegas. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:52 28
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
Once again, chucky, we are interested in learning what your actions have been toward reducing your dependency on carbon fuels as well as your personal plans.

Seems like you keep avoiding the questions that have been repeatedly put to you.

Surely you are not just another socialist who loves to talk about it but expects everyone else to make the changes, are you?
Diversion from Burnt. Because your arguments are lame! LOL Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 09:59 29
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Diversion from Burnt. Because your arguments are lame! LOL
So you are admitting that you're are just another "progressive" hypocrite.

Because you'll notice that I wasn't making any argument, merely asking how you back your "beliefs" and claim with actions.

It's because people like you vote that we end up with the worst empty suit of a PM that this country has ever had - all talk, no substance. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 10:01 30
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/521671/cheap-hydrogen-from-sunlight-and-water/
Cheap Hydrogen from Sunlight and Water
Stanford researchers say new materials could help lower the cost of producing fuel with solar energy.

by Kevin Bullis November 14, 2013

Hydrogen generated using sunlight could replace fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation.

By making a solar photovoltaic material more resilient, researchers may have found a way to make artificial photosynthesis—that is, using sunlight to make fuel—cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

If you want hydrogen to power an engine or a fuel cell, it’s far cheaper to get it from natural gas than to make it by splitting water. Solar power, however, could compete with natural gas as a way to make hydrogen if the solar process were somewhere between 15 and 25 percent efficient, says the U.S. Department of Energy. While that’s more than twice as efficient as current approaches, researchers at Stanford University have recently developed materials that could make it possible to hit that goal. The work is described in the journal Science.
So all we need to do is more than double the efficiency of the solar process and hydrogen fuel from solar is a viable fuel, just a minor roadblock. The optimist in me hopes this will become reality, the realist thinks those same pesky laws of thermodynamics won't make it easy. I am all for subsidizing those researchers at Stanford to create the materials to improve the efficiency to make this a reality. I would be strictly against Toyota releasing a fuel cell powered car and my tax dollars subsidizing both the cost of the car and the cost of producing the fuel, if the technology does not yet exist to make it cost effective on its own. As has been happening with the current electric cars and green energy to power them. Reply With Quote