Wind Turbines

[Hamloc]

Keep in mind that this is a global forecast from Bloomberg and every country region will have its own mix of electricity sources.

So Chuck still waiting to hear your justification for the uneven application of carbon taxes across Canada even though our federal government says we are in a climate emergency. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, in these provinces home heating fuel is not subject to a carbon tax. In Nova Scotia and PEI much lower carbon tax on gasoline. In NewBrunswick basically no carbon tax($1 per tonne) on coal for electricity generation. In Quebec their cap and trade program equates to $18 a tonne with no clear path to it rising $10 a tonne per year! So why the special deals for Fed friendly provinces?

[Wheatking]

From the International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2019
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019 https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019

Electricity use grows at more than double the pace of overall energy demand in the Stated Policies Scenario, confirming its place at the heart of modern economies. Growth in electricity use in the Stated Policies Scenario is led by industrial motors (notably in China), followed by household appliances, cooling and electric vehicles. In the Sustainable Development Scenario, electricity is one of the few energy sources that sees growing consumption in 2040 – mainly due to electric vehicles – alongside the direct use of renewables, and hydrogen. The share of electricity in final consumption, less than half that of oil today, overtakes oil by 2040.

The expansion of generation from wind and solar PV helps renewables overtake coal in the power generation mix in the mid-2020s. By 2040, low-carbon sources provide more than half of total electricity generation. Wind and solar PV are the star performers, but hydropower (15% of total generation in 2040) and nuclear (8%) retain major shares.



The speed at which battery costs decline is a critical variable for power markets as well as for electric cars. India is the largest overall source of energy demand growth in this year’s Outlook, and we examine how a cost-effective combination of cheaper battery storage and solar PV could reshape the evolution of India’s power mix in the coming decades. Battery storage is well suited to provide the short-term flexibility that India needs, allowing a lunchtime peak in solar PV supply to meet an early evening peak in demand. In the Stated Policies Scenario, a major reduction in battery costs means that some 120 GW of storage are installed by 2040.

We also examine the possibility that battery costs could decline even faster – an extra 40% by 2040 – because of greater industrial economies of scale or a breakthrough in battery chemistry, for example. In this case, combined solar and battery storage plants would be a very compelling economic and environmental proposition, reducing sharply India’s projected investment in new coal-fired power plants.

So if costs are supposedly going to come down so much, why force development now when it's not viable economically. When the costs come down to make it justifiable development will happen on its own without wasting our resources and money now on something that will be obsolete in a few years due to supposed technological development.

Give the renewable industries money for technological development, but quit wasting money on projects that make no economic sense, other than appeasing the Greenpeace activists, and environment wackos who have no common sense.

[furrowtickler]

I wonder who will cover the orphaned turbines in the near future ?
https://www.energycentral.com/news/retiring-worn-out-wind-turbines-could-cost-billions-nobody-has

[chuckChuck]

The Federal government gave each province the option of setting up their plan to suit their unique circumstances as long as it met the federal minimum . Some chose not to do anything and had the federal plan imposed. That is why we have a patchwork of different plans.

Alberta and Saskatchewan both have carbon taxes on large emitters. Even though they say the don't support carbon taxes. Go figure?

Not one province is opposed to reducing carbon emissions. They all have a plan of some sort.

[bucket]

I wonder who will cover the orphaned turbines in the near future ?
https://www.energycentral.com/news/retiring-worn-out-wind-turbines-could-cost-billions-nobody-has

Greta and her ilk can pay those costs....and I am happy they are getting those costs to pay....it will be a wake up call to their brainwashing...


My guess is coal comes back ....If Saskpower had not been established the wind power would have developed long ago in individual yards but I think people seen value in being hooked to the grid along with natural gas in the 80s....

But to each their own...

[chuckChuck]

Why not stop subsidizing fossil fuels?

There are many direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels and large hidden costs from pollution and climate change.

Peter Lougheed invested taxpayers money in developing and supporting the oil sands in the early years of development. Why didn't he let them fail or succeed on their own?

Why then is it wrong to invest in developing low carbon energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions?

[bucket]

Electric vehicles still use the highways right?


So while the taxes I pay on fuel are suppose to go to the roads ....nothing exists for EVs. ...plus they get a subsidy for the purchase...


Do you want to debate subsidies?

[chuckChuck]

Easy fix. Find a tax that can be applied to EVs to pay for their share the road system.

We should be making users pay for the road system rather than a subsidized public road system that encourages heavy trucking on roads instead of using the rail system to move heavy freight long distances.

Maybe we should make the rail system public so that we can have competition on rails instead of the duopoly we have now?

It would be a good investment in infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions. Why public roads and a private rail system which provides poor service?

[sk_wheatking]

Easy fix. Find a tax that can be applied to EVs to pay for their share the road system.

We should be making users pay for the road system rather than a subsidized public road system that encourages heavy trucking on roads instead of using the rail system to move heavy freight long distances.

Maybe we should make the rail system public so that we can have competition on rails instead of the duopoly we have now?

It would be a good investment in infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions. Why public roads and a private rail system which provides poor service?

I agree, let's have multiple wind turbines right beside your house, afterall you think it's so great, you would welcome as many as possible beside you.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

or a breakthrough in battery chemistry, for example. In this case, combined solar and battery storage plants would be a very compelling economic and environmental proposition, reducing sharply India’s projected investment in new coal-fired power plants.

In other words, all of their projections are based on a technological miracle that doesn't yet exist, isn't on the drawing board, and as of today, likely isn't physically possible. So read that statement first, then read the rest of the article in its proper context.