Level 2 power alert in AB last night.

[jazz]

A solar panel or windmill with a 20 yr life or payback will not offset the carbon it took to build it, period, so its sensless to adopt such a technoligy until that hurdle is met. I mean its about CO2 right? Or is it about virtue signalling? because it sure as hell isnt about efficient and reliabe energy production.

[ajl]

Temperature has risen but a nasty windchill out there now. From the aeso website, Halkirk wind (east of Stettler AB) is producing 102 MW out of a 150 capacity. First time I have seen a wind farm do much of anything this cold snap. Other times it has been 6/150. None of the others seem to produce much of anything but Halkirk seems to be on the board as producing something most of the time.

[dmlfarmer]

A solar panel or windmill with a 20 yr life or payback will not offset the carbon it took to build it, period, so its sensless to adopt such a technoligy until that hurdle is met. I mean its about CO2 right? Or is it about virtue signalling? because it sure as hell isnt about efficient and reliabe energy production.

Why do you think it is a valid argument to call for zero carbon windmills/solar panels and if we do not get those the technology we should not be adopted; yet you ignore the carbon cost of building, operating, and maintaining fossil fuel generation?

Do you have the calculations of the carbon costs for building, maintaining, and operating a fossil fuel power plant over a similar 20 year period? Why don't you post that to make it a real comparison of carbon output?

Your post is nothing more than a typical strawman argument to deflect from the point I was making.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why do you think it is a valid argument to call for zero carbon windmills/solar panels and if we do not get those the technology we should not be adopted; yet you ignore the carbon cost of building, operating, and maintaining fossil fuel generation?

Do you have the calculations of the carbon costs for building, maintaining, and operating a fossil fuel power plant over a similar 20 year period? Why don't you post that to make it a real comparison of carbon output?

The experiment has been done in real life. The fact that fossil fuel power plants have been powering a modern energy intensive industrial society with the energy left over following their extraction, processing, transportation, burning, and dealing with any unintended consequences, indicates that they are net positive energy contributors in a significant way. Whether we measure that as CO2 balance, or Joules, or Dollars, the result is undeniable. If they were not, we would be spinning our wheels consuming as much energy( or more) than we get out.

[jazz]

Why do you think it is a valid argument to call for zero carbon windmills/solar panels and if we do not get those the technology we should not be adopted; yet you ignore the carbon cost of building, operating, and maintaining fossil fuel generation?

Do you have the calculations of the carbon costs for building, maintaining, and operating a fossil fuel power plant over a similar 20 year period? Why don't you post that to make it a real comparison of carbon output?

Your post is nothing more than a typical strawman argument to deflect from the point I was making.

It doesnt matter what the carbon foot print of fossil fuel generation station is. That was never its purpose to offset carbon so its meaningless in the economics. It paid back its initial construction usually within 3 to 5 years. Solar and wind are 20yrs. If we are going to put up with that thin of economics for an unreliable energy source that has to be backed up anyway, then there has to be another variable we are chasing. We are told that's CO2, yet those technologies cant offset that either.

We would be much better throwing money into carbon sequestration. Yes even a tree is a better idea than wind or solar.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

It doesnt matter what the carbon foot print of fossil fuel generation station is. That was never its purpose to offset carbon so its meaningless in the economics. It paid back its initial construction usually within 3 to 5 years. Solar and wind are 20yrs. If we are going to put up with that thin of economics for an unreliable energy source that has to be backed up anyway, then there has to be another variable we are chasing. We are told that's CO2, yet those technologies cant offset that either.

We would be much better throwing money into carbon sequestration. Yes even a tree is a better idea than wind or solar.

If you know how I can power my house and charge my car with a tree I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

[Hamloc]

The experiment has been done in real life. The fact that fossil fuel power plants have been powering a modern energy intensive industrial society with the energy left over following their extraction, processing, transportation, burning, and dealing with any unintended consequences, indicates that they are net positive energy contributors in a significant way. Whether we measure that as CO2 balance, or Joules, or Dollars, the result is undeniable. If they were not, we would be spinning our wheels consuming as much energy( or more) than we get out.

After observing electricity production during this latest cold spell a favourite movie quote of mine from A Knight's Tale comes to mind: "You have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting." This describes wind power to a tee. I am not saying that wind generation doesn't work at all, I am simply saying again there is a reason it is called intermittent. My hope is that common sense will prevail and that those in government will look at actual measured results not just make decisions based on ideology when the make up of our future electrical grid is considered.

[burnt]

Rex has spoken. I was wrong, it appears, and the CO2 tax was highly efficient.

The climate crisis has been solved.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/rex-murphy-were-freezing-isnt-it-great-the-carbon-tax-must-be-working/ar-BBZ49ek?ocid=spartanntp https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/rex-murphy-were-freezing-isnt-it-great-the-carbon-tax-must-be-working/ar-BBZ49ek?ocid=spartanntp

[westernvicki]

Hope springs eternal in regards to this discussion. Base energy is essential, as at 40 below no one needs a brown out, therefore the sources need to be bullet proof, and so far, that is not in Canada, wind and solar.

This is not one size fits, all! It is the equation that works for a particular zone. Hydro for some, coal, oil and gas for others, thermal energy, nuclear, and indeed in some locations wind and solar and renewable even waste materials are more ideal and can be viewed as reliable base energy. Base energy must power the grid 100% of the time, and available in the various climate patterns of the region.


Let us hope this debate matures to something that respects the differences in a climate, & geography, and considers conservation. In Canada go from -4o and lower to plus 30 and higher, we have vast transmission network to cover, and the failure of base energy is life and death in a cold spell.

Imagine now if we were plugging in electric cars how much more Mega watts the grid would need!

In the meantime, I expect we paid a lot of #carbontax last week.

Ka-ching.

[jazz]

Climate change is the most insidious scam to ever infiltrate this society but its brilliant.

Whats the first thing people talk about in casual circles? The weather. Hot enough for ya, cold enough for ya. What a perfect place to stick a scam.

We just went through a week of -40 temps and its still the hottest January on record and soon to be no snow and ski hills are closing. The media just doubles down for the simple minded and boy do we have a lot of them now.