Canadian Politics Today

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Granny on May 18, 2019, 02:42:22 am


Title: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 18, 2019, 02:42:22 am
First, it's going to cost us.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/05/16/news/bank-canada-warns-fire-sales-carbon-intensive-assets-could-destabilize-financial
The central bank listed climate change as one of six vulnerabilities in the Canadian financial system in a report released May 16. The report, called the Financial System Review, marks the first time the Bank of Canada has explored the issue in depth as part of its examination of risks to the nation's financial stability.

In its report, the central bank recognized that investors are only getting a partial picture of what kind of impact climate change will have on Canadian businesses, because "few firms disclose the financial impact of climate change on their assets and operations."

It said climate-related risks faced by the financial system "can be managed most effectively when investors and authorities know what exposures firms face and how they are being managed."
...
"Transition costs will be felt most in carbon-intensive sectors, such as the oil and gas sector. If some fossil fuel reserves remain unexploited, assets in this sector may become stranded, losing much of their value. At the same time, other sectors such as green technology and alternative energy will likely benefit."
...
The banking regulator in Canada, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), has said it "expects all financial institutions to quantify their climate risk exposures" as well as develop strategies to manage their transition to lower-carbon assets.


It reaĺly seems that the tide is turning.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 18, 2019, 07:16:42 am
It reaĺly seems that the tide is turning.
Nothing really changes. Banks invent hypothetical numbers to keep the regulators happy and then go back to the the real world were we need fossil fuels and the so-called transition to low carbon is not going to happen soon if at all because the necessary tech does not exist at a price we can afford. In the meantime the Canadian economy struggles because the world does not want to buy anything from us other than resources and a place to launder money.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 18, 2019, 08:23:10 am
Seems investors are getting pretty wary of fossil fuels, moreso because they've been misled about climate change impacts.

It has to happen.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 18, 2019, 08:29:07 am
Seems investors are getting pretty wary of fossil fuels, moreso because they've been misled about climate change impacts.
Investor risk statements include all kinds of improbable risks simply because disclosing a risk, no matter how remote, is better than not disclosing it. That does not mean it is serious or even a likely problem. It is only a possible problem. It is a mistake to take an investor risk statement as something that is actually relevant to investors. Any knowledgeable investor will understand that fossil fuels are needed to power our economy and that is not likely to change much over the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 18, 2019, 12:12:47 pm
Investor risk statements include all kinds of improbable risks simply because disclosing a risk, no matter how remote, is better than not disclosing it. That does not mean it is serious or even a likely problem. It is only a possible problem. It is a mistake to take an investor risk statement as something that is actually relevant to investors. Any knowledgeable investor will understand that fossil fuels are needed to power our economy and that is not likely to change much over the next 20 years.

Apparently some pretty successful investors disagree with you.

Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of GMO, one of the world’s most influential asset management companies, said the financial case for divestment was compelling. “Investors with long-term horizons should avoid oil stocks on investment grounds. They face a sustained headwind. Ethical arguments for divestments are simply not necessary. They are a pure bonus,” he said.

Another new report, from Genus Capital Management in Canada, said its fossil free fund had outperformed a benchmark of standard stock market indices by almost 2% per year over the last five years. The company’s Fossil Free CanGlobe Equity Fund is a mix of Canadian and global stocks. “At the five-year mark, we can conclusively say: divesting from fossil fuels pays,” said CEO Wayne Wachell.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/10/fossil-fuel-divestment-funds-rise-to-6tn
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 18, 2019, 01:42:13 pm
Apparently some pretty successful investors disagree with you.
And other investors don't:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-invests-suncor-warren-buffett-213210421.html

Quote
We can only guess at Buffett's -- or his portfolio manager's -- true intent when it comes to Suncor. But a position worth nearly $3.8 billion at the current share price is awfully big for a mere short-term flip trade. Based on what we know about Berkshire's investing approach, this looks like a bigger investment in the success of Suncor's quite radical transformation into a lower-cost producer.

Moreover, Suncor is blessed with both strong long-term reserves and production power. Its existing oil sands resources are expected to deplete at a rate of just 1% annually between 2019 and 2023. At 2017 production levels, its current resources should be good for about 36 years. That is a lot of long-term opportunity.

There is money to be made pandering to the prejudices of people like you and Granny so there will always be people talking up their so called "ethical" investing strategy. That does not mean the world has actually changed.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 18, 2019, 02:09:24 pm
And other investors don't:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-invests-suncor-warren-buffett-213210421.html

There is money to be made pandering to the prejudices of people like you and Granny so there will always be people talking up their so called "ethical" investing strategy. That does mean the world has actually changed.

And there is money to be made from people who are pulling their investments out of fossil fuel stocks because they don't dismiss what science/scientists are showing/telling them. i.e. rapidly heating arctic, release of methane from what used to be permafrost, huge areas of missing polar ice cap, severe floods over here, severe droughts over there, forest fires burning in California all winter long, etc., etc. Even some of those little guys in the fossil fuel market (you know, like Exxon-Mobil for instance) are using wind/solar to help produce their product.

Exxon Mobil Corp. will use renewable energy to produce oil in West Texas.

Under 12-year agreements with Denmark’s Orsted A/S, Exxon will buy 500 megawatts of wind and solar power in the Permian Basin, the fastest growing U.S. oil field. It is the largest ever renewable power contract signed by an oil company, according to Bloomberg NEF. Terms weren’t disclosed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/oil-giant-exxon-turns-to-wind-solar-for-home-state-operations 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 18, 2019, 06:00:22 pm
Wind and solar are the future of energy, for sure.
These efficient bladeless wind turbines address a lot of the current concerns.

https://vortexbladeless.com/
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 18, 2019, 07:27:16 pm
Wind and solar are the future of energy, for sure.
These efficient bladeless wind turbines address a lot of the current concerns.

Hey pretty cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW4AzDpjcsI
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 18, 2019, 07:37:02 pm
The problem i see with fossil fuels is that once we start going to non-fossil fuel sources, the supply of fossil fuels will stay the same but as the demand decreases, so will the price. Price of course = supply + demand.

If ie: oil becomes cheaper, that may mean it will continue to compete with EVs even if EV technology continues to drop in price.

As an aside, I am seeing more and more Tesla's on the road.  I actually sat in a couple, it was neat but didn't like the dash, which was non-existent, all of your typical dash gauges are on a large tablet in the middle console, which is less convenient since you have to turn your head: https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/tesla-model-s-dashboard-in-autopilot-testing-with-iihs-credit-iihs_100665437_l.jpg

The doors on some models also open like a Delorean.  Seems the Teslas are going for different for different's sake, kind of gimmicky. Since the car doesn't have an engine you also get a small trunk under the hood for storage in the freed up space, which is nice.  No engine means no oil changes, which is a nice savings of $60-80 a year.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 18, 2019, 07:42:12 pm
Thanks for posting that video, poonlight graham
Link added above now too.

The technology is exciting. Changes can snowball fast , and I think we're on the cusp of it.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 18, 2019, 07:54:34 pm
The problem i see with fossil fuels is that once we start going to non-fossil fuel sources, the supply of fossil fuels will stay the same but as the demand decreases, so will the price. Price of course = supply + demand.

If ie: oil becomes cheaper, that may mean it will continue to compete with EVs even if EV technology continues to drop in price.

As an aside, I am seeing more and more Tesla's on the road.  I actually sat in a couple, it was neat but didn't like the dash, which was non-existent, all of your typical dash gauges are on a large tablet in the middle console, which is less convenient since you have to turn your head: https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/tesla-model-s-dashboard-in-autopilot-testing-with-iihs-credit-iihs_100665437_l.jpg

The doors on some models also open like a Delorean.  Seems the Teslas are going for different for different's sake, kind of gimmicky. Since the car doesn't have an engine you also get a small trunk under the hood for storage in the freed up space, which is nice.  No engine means no oil changes, which is a nice savings of $60-80 a year.

Not only are EV's already cheaper/more efficient to operate than gas powered cars, look at the potential for maintenance savings when you think about the far fewer moving parts that make up an electric motor compared to pistons.  A Tesla Model S has fewer than 150 moving parts, including the drive train, windows, controls, suspension and doors. A typical internal combustion engine car has about 10,000. Agreed up front cars are currently higher sticker price but will drop as more people switch, and of course you don't have to buy a Tesla just like you don't have to buy a Cadillac.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 18, 2019, 08:14:58 pm
Hey pretty cool:
Definitely a clever idea but the devil will be in the details. i.e. what is the capacity factor? what is the cost per kWh? What is the product lifetime (no gears but flexing columns will be subject to material fatigue)? It will be tech to watch for but its success is not guaranteed at this point.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 18, 2019, 08:26:53 pm
Not only are EV's already cheaper/more efficient to operate than gas powered cars, look at the potential for maintenance savings when you think about the far fewer moving parts that make up an electric motor compared to pistons.  A Tesla Model S has fewer than 150 moving parts, including the drive train, windows, controls, suspension and doors. A typical internal combustion engine car has about 10,000. Agreed up front cars are currently higher sticker price but will drop as more people switch, and of course you don't have to buy a Tesla just like you don't have to buy a Cadillac.

I don't know much about cars anymore, but browsing around it seems there are lots of used ones around now too. That's when EV's becomes more accessible to many more people.

What is the life of an EV?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 18, 2019, 08:27:24 pm
Not only are EV's already cheaper/more efficient to operate than gas powered cars, look at the potential for maintenance savings when you think about the far fewer moving parts that make up an electric motor compared to pistons.  A Tesla Model S has fewer than 150 moving parts, including the drive train, windows, controls, suspension and doors. A typical internal combustion engine car has about 10,000. Agreed up front cars are currently higher sticker price but will drop as more people switch, and of course you don't have to buy a Tesla just like you don't have to buy a Cadillac.

Would you buy one on your next car purchase?  For me i'd 1. have to do the cost calculations over its lifetime, and 2. i'm waiting to see how these things work out, they're a new tech, how do they hold up etc, and 3. There's issues with charging, unless you just do city driving.

I'd be a hybrid for now if i went that route.  Maybe in another 10 yrs they'l be fully mainstream.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 18, 2019, 08:41:58 pm
Would you buy one on your next car purchase?  For me i'd 1. have to do the cost calculations over its lifetime, and 2. i'm waiting to see how these things work out, they're a new tech, how do they hold up etc, and 3. There's issues with charging, unless you just do city driving.

I'd be a hybrid for now if i went that route.  Maybe in another 10 yrs they'l be fully mainstream.

I would/will buy one because I don't have to worry about the charging issues on my trips. I don't think EV's have been around long enough to get a handle on their life cycle but once again, the maintenance costs are obviously much less simply due to how simple they are. I know that just about every taxi I see on the road in my city is a Hybrid and I have ridden in many and the owners/drives love 'em.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 18, 2019, 09:08:47 pm
The short haul harbor to harbor float plane operator out of Vancouver/Victoria plans to start converting it's Turbo Beavers to electric power toward the end of this year.   
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 18, 2019, 09:16:28 pm
I know that just about every taxi I see on the road in my city is a Hybrid and I have ridden in many and the owners/drives love 'em.

Really?  interesting.  A friend of mine rented a hybrid on a trip and loved it because the gas hardly had to be filled.  Will have to keep my eye out on the roadsat the taxis.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 03:15:19 am
In the meantime the Canadian economy struggles because the world does not want to buy anything from us other than resources and a place to launder money.

no worries! Jason Kenney has a $30 million 'Energy War Room' ready to... address climate change; enabled by a compliant ConMedia:

Quote
Canadian news media company Postmedia has hired Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's former chief of staff (& 2019 election campaign manager), Nick Koolsbergen, to lobby the new United Conservative Party government on how it could be involved with the new "energy war room" promised by Kenney during the recent Alberta election campaign

per the Alberta Lobbyist Registry: "To discuss ways Postmedia could be involved in the government's energy war room"
(https://i.imgur.com/oRiqK9T.png)

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 21, 2019, 08:38:15 pm
Sad.
Post media used to at least pretend to be a real news media company. Lol

Could it be any more incestuous?
Canadian news media company Postmedia has hired Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's former chief of staff (& 2019 election campaign manager), Nick Koolsbergen, to lobby the new United Conservative Party government on how it could be involved with the new "energy war room" promised by Kenney during the recent Alberta election campaign".

War Room.
I can't decide if this is a cartoon or just random entertainment.
Or war.
Lol

I'll let the investors and banks take care of winding down the oil industry.

http://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/video/mccreath-alberta-s-oil-sector-is-in-for-a-very-rough-2019~1551861
"McCreath: Alberta's oil sector is in for 'a very rough' 2019
BNN Bloomberg Commentator Andrew McCreath discusses the challenges oil stocks will face following business plan releases and the impact on the Albertan economy. He also notes, on the heels of GM announcing its restructuring plan, that it's up to the Canadian government to handle how people will be employed in the tech age."

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 22, 2019, 09:40:16 am
Sad. Post media used to at least pretend to be a real news media company. Lol

Postmedia is definitely ConMedia's pack-leader!
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 25, 2019, 07:12:08 pm
Global economy would save up to $160 trillion by shifting to renewables, electric cars
https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-energy-electric-vehicles-climate-cost-4eb542fa68fe
Imagine a world where 85% of all electricity comes from renewable sources, there are over one billion electric vehicles on the road, and we are on track to preserve a livable climate for our children and future generations.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reported this week that such a future is not merely possible by 2050, but thanks to plummeting prices in key clean energy technologies, the cost of saving the climate has dropped dramatically.


Factoring in environmental costs (in your taxes) of fossil fuel energy, It's already cheaper to go renewable, and getting cheaper all the time.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 07:45:56 pm
Global economy would save up to $160 trillion by shifting to renewables, electric cars
https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-energy-electric-vehicles-climate-cost-4eb542fa68fe
Imagine a world where 85% of all electricity comes from renewable sources, there are over one billion electric vehicles on the road, and we are on track to preserve a livable climate for our children and future generations.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reported this week that such a future is not merely possible by 2050, but thanks to plummeting prices in key clean energy technologies, the cost of saving the climate has dropped dramatically.


Factoring in environmental costs (in your taxes) of fossil fuel energy, It's already cheaper to go renewable, and getting cheaper all the time.

And here's another example of just that.

 The cost of producing one megawatt-hour of electricity — a standard way to measure electricity production — is now around $50 for solar power, according to Lazard's math. The cost of producing one megawatt-hour of electricity from coal, by comparison, is $102 — more than double the cost of solar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5

It would seem fairly simple to figure out that operating a solar powered electricity producing plant would be a lot easier and cheaper than a coal fired one.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 07:55:22 pm
It would seem fairly simple to figure out that operating a solar powered electricity producing plant would be a lot easier and cheaper than a coal fired one.
Except the real cost of providing 7x24 reliable power is not simply a question of of the cost per megawatt. What matters is the costs imposed on the grid by a power source and sources like wind and solar impose large costs which are not factored into those numbers.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 07:58:15 pm
Except the real cost of providing 7x24 reliable power is not simply a question of of the cost per megawatt. What matters is the costs imposed on the grid by a power source and sources like wind and solar impose large costs which are not factored into those numbers.

Why do you think connecting solar panels to the grid would be such a cost aside from initially producing the panels?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on May 25, 2019, 08:31:01 pm
I would guess startup costs, as well as the estimated capacity it can add.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 08:34:44 pm
Why do you think connecting solar panels to the grid would be such a cost aside from initially producing the panels?
Solar/wind do not provide reliable 24x7 power nor do they produce power on demand. This means the grid needs to have compensators that can handle the solar/wind coming online and disappearing. In small quantities the grid already deals with such variability but as the quantity of renewables increases the grid has to provide dedicated power sources that only exist to provide backup for renewables. The capital cost of building and running these additional power sources has to be included in any calculation of costs. If these backups are gas then these renewables also emit CO2 that should be included in the costs of wind/solar.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 08:43:39 pm
Solar/wind do not provide reliable 24x7 power nor do they produce power on demand. This means the grid needs to have compensators that can handle the solar/wind coming online and disappearing. In small quantities the grid already deals with such variability but as the quantity of renewables increases the grid has to provide dedicated power sources that only exist to provide backup for renewables. The capital cost of building and running these additional power sources has to be included in any calculation of costs. If these backups are gas then these renewables also emit CO2 that should be included in the costs of wind/solar.

You don't have to build additional power sources to backup renewables. You just throttle back the existing ones when renewables are producing.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 09:29:46 pm
You don't have to build additional power sources to backup renewables. You just throttle back the existing ones when renewables are producing.
You need to build completely redundant capacity since you can't risk blackouts if renewable output goes to zero. This doubles the capital cost of renewables if you use backups like gas. If you try to provide backups with batteries you need enough backup to deal with the statistically unlikely but possible periods where renewables could be not producing due to weather events. The cost of such batteries is too expensive to even consider.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 09:35:17 pm
You need to build completely redundant capacity since you can't risk blackouts if renewable output goes to zero. This doubles the capital cost of renewables if you use backups like gas. If you try to provide backups with batteries you need enough backup to deal with the statistically unlikely but possible periods where renewables could be not producing due to weather events. The cost of such batteries is too expensive to even consider.

No you do not need redundant capacity. When the sun is up the solar panel for instance simply feeds into the existing grid. When the sun goes down the existing system is still standing by.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 25, 2019, 09:42:57 pm
Except the real cost of providing 7x24 reliable power is not simply a question of of the cost per megawatt. What matters is the costs imposed on the grid by a power source and sources like wind and solar impose large costs which are not factored into those numbers.

Lazard's analysis is based on a measurement known as the levelized cost of energy analysis (LCOE), which is a way of calculating the total production cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant.

I think the article refutes your claim, TimG: All building and operating costs are included.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 09:43:56 pm
No you do not need redundant capacity. When the sun is up the solar panel for instance simply feeds into the existing grid. When the sun goes down the existing system is still standing by.
You have no clue how the electrical grid works and I don't feel like providing a remedial tutorial to someone who is not likely to listen. This kind of crap is why is impossible to have a sensible discussion on addressing climate change. For such a discussion to be useful people need to be honest and acknowledge the limitations of the technology we have available.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 09:45:36 pm
Lazard's analysis is based on a measurement known as the levelized cost of energy analysis (LCOE), which is a way of calculating the total production cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant.
It omits the cost of backup power for renewables because including such a cost would require assumptions about the type of back up power. This means the number is meaningless. It also adds arbitrary fudge factors to "account" for CO2 emissions which have nothing to do with the real world cost of producing electricity.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 25, 2019, 09:52:47 pm
It omits the cost of backup power for renewables because including such a cost would require assumptions about the type of back up power. This means the number is meaningless. It also adds arbitrary fudge factors to "account" for CO2 emissions which have nothing to do with the real world cost of producing electricity.
We now have to evaluate environmental costs of energy use too, and burning fossil fuels is not winning.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 09:59:57 pm
We now have to evaluate environmental costs of energy use too, and burning fossil fuels is not winning.
That is a separate discussion. If you want to have an honest conversation about the cost of producing electricity you leave those costs out. You add those considerations back in when you are deciding what mix of energy to use based on the money that is available to pay for it. i.e. you decide what carbon tax people are willing to pay in a given jurisdiction and you add that into the cost analysis. You don't bury assumptions about a carbon tax into a generic cost analysis and then use that to make the false statement that renewables are cheaper than coal because they are are not when you look at the actual money that has to be spent.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 10:00:05 pm
You have no clue how the electrical grid works and I don't feel like providing a remedial tutorial to someone who is not likely to listen. This kind of crap is why is impossible to have a sensible discussion on addressing climate change. For such a discussion to be useful people need to be honest and acknowledge the limitations of the technology we have available.

Sorry buddy but I spent the better part of my first ten years in the work force as an electrician. Here's a clue for ya, you can put a solar panel on your roof, hook it into the grid, and when it is producing that wheel on your hydro meter slows down which saves you money.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 10:06:32 pm
Sorry buddy but I spent the better part of my first ten years in the work force as an electrician. Here's a clue for ya, you can put a solar panel on your roof, hook it into the grid, and when it is producing that wheel on your hydro meter slows down which saves you money.
Being a electrician does not mean you have any knowledge of how the grid works and your response proves it. In your example, the homeowner with solar panels still expects to get 100% of their needs from the grid so the grid has to build the capacity needed to supply those needs even if solar reduces demand on most days. This redundant capacity costs money - money that only has to be spent because renewables are used which means this cost has to be included in the cost of renewables.

We see a similar effect with water bills in Vancouver. Even if you use no water you still have to pay a large sum for the privilege of connecting to the water system. This is because someone has to pay for the system even if it is not used.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 25, 2019, 10:11:22 pm
You need to build completely redundant capacity since you can't risk blackouts if renewable output goes to zero. This doubles the capital cost of renewables if you use backups like gas. If you try to provide backups with batteries you need enough backup to deal with the statistically unlikely but possible periods where renewables could be not producing due to weather events. The cost of such batteries is too expensive to even consider.
You are right, the costing does not include backup power:
LCOE as a measurement does not take into account some external costs, like storing solar power for cloudy days, which is one of the lingering obstacles preventing the widespread adoption of solar.

I think we'll be using a mix of sources feeding the grid for a while, so backup isn't an issue now and technological inprovements will take care of it in the future.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 10:15:20 pm
Being a electrician does not mean you have any knowledge of how the grid works and your response proves it. In your example, the homeowner with solar panels still expects to get 100% of their needs from the grid so the grid has to build the capacity needed to supply those needs even if solar reduces demand on most days. This redundant capacity costs money - money that only has to be spent because renewables are used which means this cost has to be included in the cost of renewables.

We see a similar effect with water bills in Vancouver. Even if you use no water you still have to pay a large sum for the privilege of connecting to the water system. This is because someone has to pay for the system even if it is not used.

It seems you still don't understand well. The homeowner with solar cells reduces their costs when those panels are producing power so they get much less than 100% from the grid when the sun shines bright. So the redundant capacity actually saves money.
 And I pay a minor fee to be connected to the water system and then there's this little meter thingy that charges me for how much I use.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 10:21:04 pm
You are right, the costing does not include backup power:
LCOE as a measurement does not take into account some external costs, like storing solar power for cloudy days, which is one of the lingering obstacles preventing the widespread adoption of solar.

I think we'll be using a mix of sources feeding the grid for a while, so backup isn't an issue now and technological inprovements will take care of it in the future.

I am sure we will be using a mix for a long time to come but that mix will teeter toward renewables as more are developed and come online. We'd have to be rather stupid to continue simply drilling holes in the ground to try to find more pollutants to keep the lights on while the sun gets up every day.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 10:24:48 pm
I think we'll be using a mix of sources feeding the grid for a while, so backup isn't an issue now and technological inprovements will take care of it in the future.
It is wrong for you to assume that technological improvements will "take care" of the problem in the future for the same reason I can't assume that climate change will not cause problems. We can't know what tech will appear in the future and we have to plan with the tech we have and can afford to use today. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 10:45:23 pm
It is wrong for you to assume that technological improvements will "take care" of the problem in the future for the same reason I can't assume that climate change will not cause problems. We can't know what tech will appear in the future and we have to plan with the tech we have and can afford to use today.

Climate change is already causing problems which is why science is working hard and successfully to move us away from fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 25, 2019, 11:08:17 pm
I have fairly high confidence that by 2100 we will have not only the technological capability to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere to anything we want, but we'll be able to geo-engineer most species populations and re-freeze the glaciers etc etc.  Essentially we'll have the means to do mostly what we want with the environment, including a global temperate drop.

This is like people in 1919 worried we're eventually all going to die of polio, or people in 1819 worried we're going to eventually run out of wood to heat our homes.  The entire problem will be irrelevant due to unthinkable technology changes.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 11:18:42 pm
I have fairly high confidence that by 2100 we will have not only the technological capability to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere to anything we want, but we'll be able to geo-engineer most species populations and re-freeze the glaciers etc etc.  Essentially we'll have the means to do mostly what we want with the environment, including a global temperate drop.

This is like people in 1919 worried we're eventually all going to die of polio, or people in 1819 worried we're going to eventually run out of wood to heat our homes.  The entire problem will be irrelevant due to unthinkable technology changes.

You can grow trees simply by putting seeds in the ground. Growing ice, not so easy.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 25, 2019, 11:24:15 pm
You can grow trees simply by putting seeds in the ground. Growing ice, not so easy.

I grow ice in my freezer.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 11:26:27 pm
I grow ice in my freezer.

And you do so by burning electricity
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 11:48:02 pm
I have fairly high confidence that by 2100 we will have not only the technological capability to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere to anything we want, but we'll be able to geo-engineer most species populations and re-freeze the glaciers etc etc.
Not every problem faced by people in 1919 has been addressed by technology. Disease and old age still kill people. While it is true to say that many of the problems we face today will not be problems for people in 2100 we cannot know which problems will be fixed and which will be still  intractable. Therefore, it is naive to assume that a solution for a specific problem will appear. Maybe it will but it is also possible that it won't.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2019, 12:10:07 am
Not every problem faced by people in 1919 has been addressed by technology. Disease and old age still kill people. While it is true to say that many of the problems we face today will not be problems for people in 2100 we cannot know which problems will be fixed and which will be still  intractable. Therefore, it is naive to assume that a solution for a specific problem will appear. Maybe it will but it is also possible that it won't.

True, but it's estimated that not long after mid-century we're going to experience a technological explosion with changes so vast and unthinkable it will make most pieces of science fiction ever written look like a joke:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-ai-could-be-worst-event-in-civilization.html

Immortality may be likely.  We may even become irrelevant as a species.  Meanwhile we're worried about CO2 molecules.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 26, 2019, 12:12:06 am
Not every problem faced by people in 1919 has been addressed by technology. Disease and old age still kill people. While it is true to say that many of the problems we face today will not be problems for people in 2100 we cannot know which problems will be fixed and which will be still  intractable. Therefore, it is naive to assume that a solution for a specific problem will appear. Maybe it will but it is also possible that it won't.

Yet another go nowhere circle.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 26, 2019, 12:15:34 am
True, but it's estimated that not long after mid-century we're going to experience a technological explosion with changes so vast and unthinkable it will make most pieces of science fiction ever written look like a joke:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-ai-could-be-worst-event-in-civilization.html

Immortality may be likely.  We may even become irrelevant as a species.  Meanwhile we're worried about CO2 molecules.

If we want to achieve immortality we better deal with CO2 molecules.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2019, 12:54:51 am
the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/) calculated what climate change will cost the world... or conversely, how much humanity would save by becoming more sustainable - tallied the number at $26 trillion in savings by 2030.

Quote
key findings:

    - Time is running out; extreme damages from future climate change are being locked in. If humanity isn’t on a sustainable trajectory by 2030, limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius — the common international target — will be rendered impossible.
    - The developing world needs tons of new infrastructure; the developed world has tons of infrastructure nearing the end of its life span. That means the world is on the verge of an enormous infrastructure boom that will lock in emissions outcomes for the next 50 to 100 years. The next few years are vital: “The world is expected to spend about US$90 trillion on infrastructure in the period up to 2030, more than the entire current stock today. Much of this investment will be programmed in the next few years.”
    - In all five areas the report closely examined — energy, cities, food/land use, water, and industry/innovation/transport — shifting to sustainable technologies and techniques would save trillions of dollars through 2030 in increased productivity, innovation, and reduced health costs. Sustainability costs less.
    - The impacts of climate change and the impacts of a transition to sustainability will both be concentrated in particular countries and communities, so every policy and infrastructure decision needs to be made with equity in mind.
    - Progress is underway in many areas, especially in energy, but it is patchwork, inconsistent, and entirely insufficient to achieve shared long-term goals.
    - Policymakers worldwide need to price carbon, roll back fossil fuel subsidies (and other policies that impede sustainability), invest in sustainable infrastructure, harness the private sector, and protect vulnerable communities.


Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 26, 2019, 01:09:19 am
I am sure we will be using a mix for a long time to come but that mix will teeter toward renewables as more are developed and come online. We'd have to be rather stupid to continue simply drilling holes in the ground to try to find more pollutants to keep the lights on while the sun gets up every day.

For sure. Renewables have a lot of room to grow, and will in leaps and bounds.
Currently only at 2.2%.

And we have to wind down nuclear too.
And there's the damming issue with hydro power, counted as a renewable, but iffy.

And transmission.

We have challenges.
But I believe scientists love challenges.
And capitalists will follow the money as investment shifts.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 01:10:01 am
True, but it's estimated that not long after mid-century we're going to experience a technological explosion with changes so vast and unthinkable it will make most pieces of science fiction ever written look like a joke:
They said the same kind of thing about 2000s in the 1970s (e.g. unlimited energy with nuclear/fusion power). There is no reason to assume it will actually happen. It might happen or we may find out that, like fusion power, the technical details make it a lot less revolutionary than people assume today.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 01:13:41 am
the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/) calculated what climate change will cost the world... or conversely, how much humanity would save by becoming more sustainable - tallied the number at $26 trillion in savings by 2030.
Why would anyone take an economic prediction for 100 years from now seriously when the same kinds of economic models can't predict the economy over a decade.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 26, 2019, 01:18:15 am
They said the same kind of thing about 2000s in the 1970s (e.g. unlimited energy with nuclear/fusion power). There is no reason to assume it will actually happen. It might happen or we may find out that, like fusion power, the technical details make it a lot less revolutionary than people assume today.

Fission will have to do for now.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2019, 01:20:56 am
Why would anyone take an economic prediction for 100 years from now seriously when the same kinds of economic models can't predict the economy over a decade.

notwithstanding the quote you're replying to references calculated cost savings by 2030, what are YOUR PREFERRED economic models  and what do they predict as the cost of climate change by 2030?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 01:21:24 am
And we have to wind down nuclear too.
I guess you are just another one of those deniers that does not really care about CO2 emissions but just sees it as a tool to push your left wing policy choices. Because if you really cared about CO2 emission you would realize that the problems with nuclear power are far smaller than the alleged catastrophic consequences from CO2 therefore it makes no sense to discard the one option we have for reliable CO2 free power.  We should be expanding nuclear power as fast as can be done.

So go ahead, make your excuses to rationalize why we should shut down nuclear plants in the face of an alleged "climate crisis". While you are doing then try explaining why people who do not agree with you should make any sacrifices or compromise to reduce CO2 emissions when you clearly have no interested in compromise.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2019, 01:30:17 am
We should be expanding nuclear power as fast as can be done.

So go ahead, make your excuses to rationalize why we should shut down nuclear plants in the face of an alleged "climate crisis". While you are doing then try explaining why people who do agree with you should make any sacrifices or compromise to reduce CO2 emissions when you clearly have no interested in compromise.

hey now! Nothing like the currently running HBO series 'Chernobyl' to refocus on the cautionary side being taken by those scientists/engineers working on/towards the next iteration of nuclear reactors... something about, "advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability, proliferation-resistance, etc..". And, by the by, how do you pronounce, "Fukushima"
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 01:32:13 am
notwithstanding the quote you're replying to references calculated cost savings by 2030, what are YOUR PREFERRED economic models  and what do they predict as the cost of climate change by 2030?
Any economic model that claims to make predictions for 5 years or more is creative fiction. Such claims can't be treated as fact or even as a likely probability. We need to make decisions based on the assumption that anything could happen from a disaster that has nothing to do with climate to CO2 induced warming turning out to be a complete non-issue to it being a big problem as claimed.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 01:36:16 am
hey now! Nothing like the currently running HBO series 'Chernobyl' to refocus on the cautionary side being taken by those scientists/engineers working on/towards the next iteration of nuclear reactors... something about, "advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability, proliferation-resistance, etc..". And, by the by, how do you pronounce, "Fukushima"
Such things are a price that needs to be paid if we do indeed face a "climate crisis". However, your refusal to accept all available options is noted and it means you can't really complain if other people refuse to consider options you prefer.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2019, 01:41:21 am
Any economic model that claims to make predictions for 5 years or more is creative fiction. Such claims can't be treated as fact or even as a likely probability. We need to make decisions based on the assumption that we have no idea what may happen.

wait, what? And here I was all keyed up for you to charge forward with your alternate/preferred economic models that provide a more palatable, to you, cost of climate change. So... you want to ignore any braniac economists and their model thingees that presume to predict climate change costs for a period time frame of, as you say, 5 years or beyond. So... "wing it" then, hey!  ;D 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2019, 01:50:11 am
hey now! Nothing like the currently running HBO series 'Chernobyl' to refocus on the cautionary side being taken by those scientists/engineers working on/towards the next iteration of nuclear reactors... something about, "advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability, proliferation-resistance, etc..". And, by the by, how do you pronounce, "Fukushima"
Such things are a price that needs to be paid if we do indeed face a "climate crisis". However, your refusal to accept all available options is noted and it means you can't really complain if other people refuse to consider options you prefer.

no - as stated many times in the past, I'm a proponent of nuclear. As much as the HBO series is 'drama theatre'... as much as it/Chernobyl and Fukishima were caused by degrees of questionable design/deployment/human error, etc.., your described "price that needs to be paid" has been evaluated by many countries and found wanting. Hence a refocus on the cautionary emphasis toward the expectations of greater safety/reliability of 'next-gen nuclear'.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 02:03:43 am
emphasis toward the expectations of greater safety/reliability of 'next-gen nuclear'.
Just excuses to "kick the can down the road" while playing lip service to the notion that we need nuclear. We know how to build reliable nuclear plants today. There is no reason not to keep building the current generation plants if CO2 free energy is a priority. If it is not a priority then your position makes sense.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 26, 2019, 10:42:16 am
Just excuses to "kick the can down the road" while playing lip service to the notion that we need nuclear. We know how to build reliable nuclear plants today. There is no reason not to keep building the current generation plants if CO2 free energy is a priority. If it is not a priority then your position makes sense.

Now you're lobbying for nuclear. Hmmm ...
First, the upstream (uranium mining) and downstream (nuclear waste) environmental costs of nuclear have yet to be figured into its real costs.
Secondly, nuclear is largely a south-central Ontario issue: we're the ones sitting on a fault line surrounded by nuclear facilities.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+power+plants+in+canada&oq=nuc&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60j69i57j0.3875j0j7&client=ms-android-bell-ca&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#istate=lrl:mlt
BTW ... those are only the major facilities. I am aware of at least one smaller nuclear reactor not listed that serves nuclear medicine's needs.

When the sh!t is really going down as Mother Earth storms and rumbles and shakes to throw off the invasive human activities that compromise her existence, it will be us who suffer the consequences first and most.

We don't build nuclear facilities to withstand extreme geological and weather conditions.
Building more nuclear now is foolhardy. Even maintaining the ones we have is foolish, but winding them down has its own issues too - e.g. buried nuclear waste on the shore of a Great Lake is a huge danger in cataclysmic circumstances.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2019, 10:53:49 am
Any economic model that claims to make predictions for 5 years or more is creative fiction. Such claims can't be treated as fact or even as a likely probability. We need to make decisions based on the assumption that we have no idea what may happen.
wait, what? And here I was all keyed up for you to charge forward with your alternate/preferred economic models that provide a more palatable, to you, cost of climate change. So... you want to ignore any braniac economists and their model thingees that presume to predict climate change costs for a period time frame of, as you say, 5 years or beyond. So... "wing it" then, hey!  ;D

member TimG, I kinda recall your brazillion posts over the years touting economists/engineers as the true & ONLY arbiters in position to determine policy related to climate change. If you're now suggesting economists can't predict shyte...
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on May 26, 2019, 03:09:18 pm
You need to build completely redundant capacity since you can't risk blackouts if renewable output goes to zero.

Obviously the power grid that has powered the nation for the past 100 years is a mystery to you.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 03:56:53 pm
Now you're lobbying for nuclear.
I am not lobbying for anything. I am just pointing your the ridiculous hypocrisy in your rhetoric. If we are actually facing a "crisis" due to CO2 then there is zero justification for refusing to use an available zero emission power source. If you think we have the luxury of picking an choosing what solutions we use based on what you think are acceptable then obviously you do not really believe there is any "crisis".

So which is it? A "climate crisis" which means we have to use nuclear? or there is no "climate crisis" and we have lots of time to be choosy about how we deal with CO2 emissions?

Pick one or the other.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 04:06:59 pm
member TimG, I kinda recall your brazillion posts over the years touting economists/engineers as the true & ONLY arbiters in position to determine policy related to climate change. If you're now suggesting economists can't predict shyte...
What I said is true. Climate scientists have nothing useful to contribute when comes to deciding what we can do at a price we can afford to pay. Engineers and economists can contribute to that discussion. But deciding what price we can afford to pay today is different from making a gazillion guesses and assumptions and using them to make claims about a specific future cost in 2100. The latter is nonsense because the chances of the various assumptions turning out to be reasonable is infinitely small.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 26, 2019, 04:08:45 pm
Obviously the power grid that has powered the nation for the past 100 years is a mystery to you.
I understand it fine. That is why I understand that renewables place a burden on the system that is not equivalent to what the qrid deals with already. Dealing with this burden costs money and that cost has to be included in the cost of renewables.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 26, 2019, 04:14:22 pm
I understand it fine. That is why I understand that renewables place a burden on the system that is not equivalent to what the qrid deals with already. Dealing with this burden costs money and that cost has to be included in the cost of renewables.

If you understand it so well, why do you seem to think that a duplicate grid is required for renewables to provide power?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 12:13:20 pm
hey now! Nothing like the currently running HBO series 'Chernobyl' to refocus on the cautionary side being taken by those scientists/engineers working on/towards the next iteration of nuclear reactors...
Keep in mind that Chernobyl was a bad reactor design (e.g. they used graphite moderators, which can, you know, burn, and didn't have a containment dome), that was run in an unsafe manner. Reactors in the western world are much better designed (use water for a moderator, have containment domes.) Suggesting nuclear power is 'unsafe' based on what happened at Chernobyl is like suggesting all cars are inherently death traps based on the exploding Ford Pinto.

Unfortunately, there is a big risk that people will look at the Chernobyl mini-series, and falsely extrapolate that to all nuclear power.(We saw the same sort of thing with The China Syndrome in the 70s.)
Quote
And, by the by, how do you pronounce, "Fukushima"
Ah yes, Fukushima...

A nuclear power plant (and an old design at that, one that was expected to be decommissioned) was hit by an earthquake and a huge wave, and it still didn't melt down, and the only immediate deaths had nothing to do with radiation. There may be a slight increase in Cancer rate in the future (although ironically the increased screening that will result may actually serve to decrease the death rate.)

The fact is, even if you consider accidents like Fukushima, Nuclear power is still the safest form of energy production in the world (in terms of kilowatts produced).

From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4f5efb22709b
Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average         100,000    (41% global electricity)
Coal – China                         170,000   (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S.                               10,000    (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil                                               36,000    (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas                                4,000    (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass                    24,000    (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop)                              440    (< 1% global electricity)
Wind                                                 150    (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average          1,400    (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S.                                     5    (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average              90    (11%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S.                                0.1    (19% U.S. electricity)

Now, it may sound rather backwards to think that solar and wind are more 'dangerous' than nuclear. But the problem is, those forms of energy still lead to accidents (during the mining of raw materials, during construction, etc.) Nuclear energy has the potential to cause significant problems if something goes wrong, but nuclear plants also produce a lot of power, and you need a heck of a lot of windmills or solar panels to replace one nuclear plant.

And of course new nuclear power plant designs (e.g. molten salt reactor) would be even safer.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 12:40:15 pm
Now you're lobbying for nuclear. Hmmm ...
First, the upstream (uranium mining) and downstream (nuclear waste) environmental costs of nuclear have yet to be figured into its real costs.
Keep in mind that nuclear waste CAN be reprocessed/resused. (In fact, the amount of nuclear waste produced to supply your needs for a lifetime would easily fit in your hand, if it were handled properly. There is far less waste produced per kilowatt hour of nuclear power than there is for wind, solar, or fossil fuels.  Granted the leftover waste is radioactive, but the small volume would make it relatively easy to manage.)

The fact that waste is not reprocessed is not a technological one but a political one.
Quote
Secondly, nuclear is largely a south-central Ontario issue: we're the ones sitting on a fault line surrounded by nuclear facilities.
Keep in mind that the 3 main nuclear power plants in Ontario (Bruce, Pickering and Darlington) are all in areas that Natural Resources Canada considers areas of low seismic activity.

Quote
BTW ... those are only the major facilities. I am aware of at least one smaller nuclear reactor not listed that serves nuclear medicine's needs.
That would likely be the chalk river nuclear facility. The university of McMaster also has a nuclear reactor (and also produces medical isotopes).

[qutoe]We don't build nuclear facilities to withstand extreme geological and weather conditions. [/quote]
Yes they do.

Did you know they actually crashed a plane into a concrete wall to see how well a nuclear reactor could stand up to an airplane strike?

https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test
Quote
Building more nuclear now is foolhardy.
Nuclear power is safe, reliable, and is proven technology, and has a low/zero carbon footprint. There is the problem with rather large up-front capital costs, but most other issues with them tend to be political rather than technical.

Quote
Even maintaining the ones we have is foolish, but winding them down has its own issues too - e.g. buried nuclear waste on the shore of a Great Lake is a huge danger in cataclysmic circumstances.
Actually they don't bury waste... its kept in holding pools on site.

Long term disposal is an issue. The proper thing to do would be to reprocess and reuse the fuel, so what you end up with is a very, very small amount of waste. But again, politics comes into play.

The U.S. had a disposal site at Yucca mountain they had created for their own disposal. But again, politics got in the way.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 27, 2019, 12:50:12 pm
Now, it may sound rather backwards to think that solar and wind are more 'dangerous' than nuclear. But the problem is, those forms of energy still lead to accidents (during the mining of raw materials, during construction, etc.) Nuclear energy has the potential to cause significant problems if something goes wrong, but nuclear plants also produce a lot of power, and you need a heck of a lot of windmills or solar panels to replace one nuclear plant.
Ya, It's backwards. Solar and wind are not as dangerous as nuclear power.

Tell us how dangerous it is:
- mining for uranium
- constructing nuclear reactors
- living near them
- 'disposing' of uranium ... ok, that isn't even possible so ... 'containing' used uranium underground in Kincardine ON, right next to a Great Lake.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/long-delayed-decision-on-nuclear-waste-bunker-likely-to-fall-to-next-government-1.4300673
Currently estimated to cost a total of $2.4 billion over a planned 50-year operational cycle, the project calls for a bunker to be built at the Bruce nuclear power plant near Kincardine, Ont. Hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of low and intermediate radioactive waste -- not spent fuel bundles but still toxic for centuries -- would be buried 680 metres deep rather than stored above ground at the site as now happens.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 01:15:18 pm
Now tell us how dangerous it is
- mining for uranium
- constructing nuclear reactors
Yes, both of those have dangers, as does any large scale construction project. You will also have danger in: mining the rare-earth metals needed for solar panels, mining the metal needed for constructing wind turbines, etc.

The difference is, as I pointed out before, one nuclear plant produces a LOT of energy, compared to the amount of resources needed to construct the plant, run it, and then decommission it. You need a lot more concrete, a lot more metal, a lot more of almost everything to build enough wind turbines/solar panels to replace one nuclear plant.
Quote
- living near them
Very little risk...

You actually get more radiation from eating one banana than you do living 50 miles away from a nuclear power plant for a whole year.

 https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Quote
- 'disposing' of uranium ... ok, that isn't possible so ... 'containing' used uranium UNDERGROUND IN KINCARDINE ON, RIGHT NEXT TO A GREAT LAKE!!!
As I have pointed out, if we did things properly (reprocessed nuclear fuel) then the entire amount of nuclear waste that would be needed to supply you and your family for a lifetime would fit in your hand.

Compare that to the environmental impact of: mining huge amounts of rare-earth metals, aluminium, steel, and concrete to build replacement windmills or solar panels (and that would leave a relatively large volume of debris behind.)

From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#598a3360121c
...Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals...

And just to let you know... unlike nuclear-contaminated material (which eventually loses radioactivity as isotopes decay) the chemicals in your solar panel will remain toxic forever.

Yes, nuclear waste needs to be dealt with. But so does the waste from solar and wind (and those problems are even further from being solved than for nuclear).

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 02:26:41 pm
Quote
I understand it fine. That is why I understand that renewables place a burden on the system that is not equivalent to what the qrid deals with already. Dealing with this burden costs money and that cost has to be included in the cost of renewables.
If you understand it so well, why do you seem to think that a duplicate grid is required for renewables to provide power?
I don't think he was claiming that a duplicate grid was necessary, only that relying on renewables can cause problems feeding power into the existing grid.

For example:

- It may be necessary to have backup gas generators on standby, should there be issues with wind/solar generation not producing enough (e.g. if its cloudy, or the wind isn't blowing.)

- On particularly sunny days, solar power fed INTO the grid from small solar panels can overload infrastructure. Extra work is needed to design the system to prevent that.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-11/electricity-distributors-warn-excess-solar-could-damage-grid/10365622
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 02:37:28 pm
If you understand it so well, why do you seem to think that a duplicate grid is required for renewables to provide power?

I don't think he was claiming that a duplicate grid was necessary, only that relying on renewables can cause problems feeding power into the existing grid.

For example:

- It may be necessary to have backup gas generators on standby, should there be issues with wind/solar generation not producing enough (e.g. if its cloudy, or the wind isn't blowing.)

- On particularly sunny days, solar power fed INTO the grid from small solar panels can overload infrastructure. Extra work is needed to design the system to prevent that.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-11/electricity-distributors-warn-excess-solar-could-damage-grid/10365622

This is the post I was referring to. Shows a lack of understanding as to how renewables can feed the grid.

'You need to build completely redundant capacity since you can't risk blackouts if renewable output goes to zero. This doubles the capital cost of renewables"
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 02:48:13 pm
'You need to build completely redundant capacity since you can't risk blackouts if renewable output goes to zero. This doubles the capital cost of renewables"
And you have offered no refutation of that statement largely because you have no clue how the grid works.

If you have a large fraction of your grid supplied by renewables you need to have idle capacity built and standing by in case the renewable production drops suddenly. This idle capacity is a cost that must be paid for and it is not cheap. That is why there is pressure on Germany to subsidize natural gas plants to prevent them from shutting down because they can't sell enough electricity to make them viable on their own. Germany has recently changed their system to allow gas production to be given priority over wind and solar (i.e. wind and solar power is dumped) to make the economics better for the absolutely essential gas plants.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 02:52:30 pm
Ya, It's backwards. Solar and wind are not as dangerous as nuclear power.
So what? Solar and wind can't supply the power we need. Nuclear can. If we are really facing a "climate crisis" then we can't be picky about how we deal with it. Nuclear waste is a problem but hardly a catastrophe compared to what you claim will happen we don't reduce CO2 emissions. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 03:21:58 pm
And you have offered no refutation of that statement largely because you have no clue how the grid works.

If you have a large fraction of your grid supplied by renewables you need to have idle capacity built and standing by in case the renewable production drops suddenly. This idle capacity is a cost that must be paid for and it is not cheap. That is why there is pressure on Germany to subsidize natural gas plants to prevent them from shutting down because they can't sell enough electricity to make them viable on their own. Germany has recently changed their system to allow gas production to be given priority over wind and solar (i.e. wind and solar power is dumped) to make the economics better for the absolutely essential gas plants.

What you seem to be referring to as "idle capacity" is actually existing capacity. And yes the sun goes down and the wind doesn't always blow but renewables can feed into the existing grid so we can throttle back that coal burner for a good portion of the day.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 03:34:16 pm
What you seem to be referring to as "idle capacity" is actually existing capacity.
Large amounts of renewables require new dispatchable capacity to provide backup. Existing baseload sources cannot provide that. Dispatchable capacity is much more expensive than baseload but the exact cost of this dispatchable capacity depends on how often they can sell power. As the fraction of renewables increases the economics of the dispatchable capacity decreases to the point where plants close without subsidies. This is what has already happened in Germany.

IOW, the dispatchable capacity needed to balance reneweables is an extra cost and the reason why wind and solar always cause electricity rates to go up despite the illusion the sun and wind are "free" resources.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 03:37:05 pm
And here is a personal reflection that won't change the world, but it fits into this discussion in a way. I had the luck to be invited on a sailboat way back when and that experience caused me to go get one of my own. There was never a nicer moment then, when after motoring out of the harbor and hoisting sails, I could shut off that noisy, stinky, costly, fossil fuel burner and accelerate thanks to the movement of the very air we breathe. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 03:39:16 pm
I could shut off that noisy, stinky, costly, fossil fuel burner and accelerate thanks to the movement of the very air we breathe.
But hell would freeze over before you would go out to sea without the option of using that fossil fuel burner. You are experiencing naive nostalgia for a world that no one wants to return to.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 03:40:11 pm
Large amounts of renewables require new dispatchable capacity to provide backup. Existing baseload sources cannot provide that. Dispatchable capacity is much more expensive than baseload but the exact cost of this dispatchable capacity depends on how often they can sell power. As the fraction of renewables increases the economics of the dispatchable capacity decreases to the point where plants close without subsidies. This is what has already happened in Germany.

IOW, the dispatchable capacity needed to balance reneweables is an extra cost and the reason why wind and solar always cause electricity rates to go up despite the illusion the sun and wind are "free" resources.

Nobody ever said wind and solar were free. They have in many areas simply become cheaper than fossils, not to mention the improvement in air quality. California is one good example.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 03:42:02 pm
But hell would freeze over before you would go out to sea without the option of using that fossil fuel burner. You are experiencing naive nostalgia for a world that no one wants to return to.

Sailboats plied the seas long before there were diesels.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 03:42:14 pm
What you seem to be referring to as "idle capacity" is actually existing capacity.
Yes and no.

Yes, there are existing gas/oil/coal/hydro capacity that can be kept in reserve. The problems:

- Not all types of generators can be 'fired up' when needed. Gas and hydro are very flexible, but Coal doesn't work that way. Coal is good for base-line generation, but its not good at ramping up or down depending on demand. So you can't keep coal plants in reserve. If that's all the grid has, you would need to build new gas plants

- Even if a generator is sitting idle waiting until its needed, its not exactly a cost-free scenario. Even an idle generator requires maintenance and probably staff. And eventually it will require replacement.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 03:44:24 pm
Nobody ever said wind and solar were free. They have in many areas simply become cheaper than fossils, not to mention the improvement in air quality. California is one good example.
And I am saying there is no way solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels once you include the cost incurred by the backup dispatchable power required to make them useful. It will likely always be cheaper to build one base load plant and run it 24x7 than to build a bunch of solar/wind capacity with backup fossil fuel plants because you need to build double the capacity.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 03:46:31 pm
Sailboats plied the seas long before there were diesels.
Yes they did. But they did so at a much slower pace.

In the early 1800s, it took ~6 weeks to cross the atlantic. (With the occasional storm increasing that time significantly.)

In the 1900s (with boats powered by fossil fuels) that time has dropped to less than a week.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 03:58:18 pm
And I am saying there is no way solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels once you include the cost incurred by the backup dispatchable power required to make them useful. It will likely always be cheaper to build one base load plant and run it 24x7 than to build a bunch of solar/wind capacity with backup fossil fuel plants because you building double the capacity.

Well there are numerous examples of renewables being more cost effective than fossils, but as already mentioned, the sun does go down and the wind does recede. You seem to ignore the concept of making the air we breathe less toxic, as well as prepping for the day when those old fossils finally run out. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 04:01:40 pm
Well there are numerous examples of renewables being more cost effective than fossils
No there are aren't. There are only examples of dishonest accounting done to make renewables look cheaper than they are by omitting necessary costs.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 04:03:28 pm
Yes they did. But they did so at a much slower pace.

In the early 1800s, it took ~6 weeks to cross the atlantic. (With the occasional storm increasing that time significantly.)

In the 1900s (with boats powered by fossil fuels) that time has dropped to less than a week.

Ha ha. Yes I am well aware of that. I was referring to tim's comment that I wouldn't go to sea without my motor. As a matter of fact I did numerous times when it broke down and I was in a place where I couldn't get parts to fix it. My main point is that we can get things down by harnessing things nature gives us.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 04:07:45 pm
No there are aren't. There are only examples of dishonest accounting done to make renewables look cheaper than they are by omitting necessary costs.

Yes there are but, only if you ignore the honest accounting of how many billions have gone into subsidizing fossil fuel producers.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 04:15:31 pm
Ha ha. Yes I am well aware of that. I was referring to tim's comment that I wouldn't go to sea without my motor. As a matter of fact I did numerous times when it broke down and I was in a place where I couldn't get parts to fix it. My main point is that we can get things down by harnessing things nature gives us.
Just make sure you have plenty of passengers on your boat.

If provisions run out you might have to resort to cannibalism.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 04:20:06 pm
Just make sure you have plenty of passengers on your boat.

If provisions run out you might have to resort to cannibalism.

Naw, you just look under the boat. You'll find what they call "fish".
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2019, 04:22:26 pm
Yes there are but, only if you ignore the honest accounting of how many billions have gone into subsidizing fossil fuel producers.

You guys can argue which is cheaper until the cows come home.  It won't be decided on a message board it will be decided by the private sector because they will be usually forced to use the cheapest, most efficient, most reliable energy or else their domestic and/or international competition will bury them.  Neither of your opinions matter on the subject, with all due respect.  If solar is cheaper, we're going to start seeing more and more leading businesses (not bad ones that fail) turn to solar.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 04:24:36 pm
Yes there are but, only if you ignore the honest accounting of how many billions have gone into subsidizing fossil fuel producers.
There is a lot of things going on that hide the true costs of energy from all sources:

- Subsidies to fossil fuel producers; lack of carbon tax hides the externalities involves with fossil fuel construction

- Renewables are often subsidized directly (e.g. grants) or indirectly (spending on infrastructure to support renewables on grid)

- Nuclear often has large up-front capital costs that require government assistance

All in all, its almost impossible to find the 'true' cost of any sort of energy.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 27, 2019, 04:32:51 pm
Quote
Just make sure you have plenty of passengers on your boat.

If provisions run out you might have to resort to cannibalism.
Naw, you just look under the boat. You'll find what they call "fish".
You mean a sea kitten? How barbaric!

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99249669

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 04:34:20 pm
If solar is cheaper, we're going to start seeing more and more leading businesses (not bad ones that fail) turn to solar.
It is not that simple. If the market was left to sort it out then solar and wind would rarely be used where there is a grid because because they are not baseload or disapatchable which makes them implicitly less useful than other power sources. Governments can and have attempted to rig the market by dumping costs on non-renewables or the grid rather than subsidizing renewable power directly (e.g. with renewable mandates). In such a rigged market it could be profitable to run a solar/wind plant but it is important to remember that the market was rigged. Simply taxing fossil fuels more is rarely enough to make up for the costs incurred dealing with the unreliable nature of solar/wind.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 04:40:17 pm
Naw, you just look under the boat. You'll find what they call "fish".
You mean a sea kitten? How barbaric!

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99249669

I don't know about "sea kittens" but I do have a hell of a good recipe for bull dolphin.

The fish, not the mammal.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 04:46:37 pm
There is a lot of things going on that hide the true costs of energy from all sources:

- Subsidies to fossil fuel producers; lack of carbon tax hides the externalities involves with fossil fuel construction

- Renewables are often subsidized directly (e.g. grants) or indirectly (spending on infrastructure to support renewables on grid)

- Nuclear often has large up-front capital costs that require government assistance

All in all, its almost impossible to find the 'true' cost of any sort of energy.

I pretty much concur with your comments. But I am leaning to being convinced that the hidden costs of fossil fuel production clean up will be way more than convering to renewables as much as we can.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on May 27, 2019, 05:14:05 pm
- Not all types of generators can be 'fired up' when needed. Gas and hydro are very flexible, but Coal doesn't work that way. Coal is good for base-line generation, but its not good at ramping up or down depending on demand. So you can't keep coal plants in reserve. If that's all the grid has, you would need to build new gas plants

Agreed that things like legacy coal lack the flexibility for scaling their output, but remember that all plants have an operational lifetime and we are planning for the future and not suggesting immediate replacement. Ontario for example, is always criticized by the "conservatives" for shutting down coal. The facts they gloss over is that the shut down took a dozen years, and was in fact a creation of the Ernie Eves Progressive Conservative government. The "conservatives" love to blame the Liberals for shutting down the coal plants, but the promise to do so was theirs to begin with and it was the Liberals that delivered on their promise.

This phase out of might have been somewhat accelerated, but remember that all generating plants do come to an end of their operating life when maintaining them becomes far more costly than replacing them. Many of the legacy plants have other emission (mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, etc.) problems that need to be addressed as well. Maybe not all jurisdictions will be as aggressive as Ontario was (12 years to complete 100% replacement), but that doesn't mean they should ignore the target.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on May 27, 2019, 05:25:33 pm
Concerning the whole sail discussion, a couple of important points to consider:

Yes, it might have taken 6 weeks or more to cross the Atlantic by sail a century ago but modern sailboats are not the same as the ones your great-great grandpappy sailed. Most modern monohulls cross in less than 4 weeks, and catamarans in about 2. There have been crossings in less than a week, but those are by racing crews.

It is starting to become more common to have electric motors on sail craft for marina and backup purposes instead of diesel. Yes there might be a diesel generator backup for these, but an ever increasing amount of the energy comes from solar, wind and hydro sources. In fact many of the electric motors double as generators when under sail. A much more recent innovation is having solar cells built into the sails themselves, giving a large collection area. I have only seen this on some experimental craft, but the promise is there.

Talking about electric boats, I am aware of at least one that has circumnavigated the world entirely on solar power. There is another that has traveled a much longer total distance, but so far it has been mostly around Europe, Africa, and the middle east.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 05:36:36 pm
Talking about electric boats, I am aware of at least one that has circumnavigated the world entirely on solar power. There is another that has traveled a much longer total distance, but so far it has been mostly around Europe, Africa, and the middle east.
Get back to me when a freighter carrying 50,000 tonnes of cargo can cross an ocean without fossil fuels. Lightweight toys created to "prove the concept" are not that useful in the real world.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on May 27, 2019, 05:56:04 pm
Get back to me when a freighter carrying 50,000 tonnes of cargo can cross an ocean without fossil fuels. Lightweight toys created to "prove the concept" are not that useful in the real world.

Yes, cargo transport is extremely high density. That doesn't mean however that we should do nothing, or that in fact nothing is being done. It will probably be supplementing rather than replacing the fossil fuel burning, but with a combination of solar, wind, and slower speed, a significant reduction of fossil fuel consumption can be made. Yes, if we continue to subsidize these transports with cheap fossil fuel that ignores the reality of the situation they are causing for current* and future generations then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

You are always talking about nuclear power, but somehow ignore the possibility for dense cargo transport.

*current - yes current generation problems. Bunker fuel is one of the worst pollution problem we currently face, not just with green house gases, but the highly toxic sulfur and other emissions from menace sailing the seas.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 06:08:28 pm
It will probably be supplementing rather than replacing the fossil fuel burning, but with a combination of solar, wind, and slower speed, a significant reduction of fossil fuel consumption can be made. Yes, if we continue to subsidize these transports with cheap fossil fuel that ignores the reality of the situation they are causing for current* and future generations then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Any mechanism that works to improve the efficiency of cargo transport is only a benefit to society. My only point is the one you just made: unless some currently unheard of tech appears then we will need to rely on fossil fuels for most of our sea and air transport needs for the foreseeable future. Zero emission for this part of human activity is not achievable.

You are always talking about nuclear power, but somehow ignore the possibility for dense cargo transport.
Nuclear requires a tightly regulated environment to ensure safety. I don't have any that confidence an industry that frequently uses 'flags of convenience' to save costs would be able to provide the assurance we need. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 06:26:40 pm
Get back to me when a freighter carrying 50,000 tonnes of cargo can cross an ocean without fossil fuels. Lightweight toys created to "prove the concept" are not that useful in the real world.

You don't think the shipping industry is also getting "on board" to curb pollution?

While it's a form of transport few of us see, shipping packs a punch as a polluter.
According to a recent study, shipping accounts for around 3% of global CO2 emissions. Not surprising when you consider that the engines of the world's estimated 90,000 cargo ships are in use 24 hours a day while traveling.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/tech/vindskip-wind-powered-container-ship/index.html
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 27, 2019, 07:11:47 pm
But hell would freeze over before you would go out to sea without the option of using that fossil fuel burner.  are experiencing naive nostalgia for a world that no one wants to return to.

I sailed without a motor quite a bit. Docking is tricky, but doable if you judge the wind properly.
And electric motors are improving all the time.

How's your horse and buggy holding up?
Must have been hard finally switching to motors!

Some things are just inevitable, TimG.
I picture you in a field of windmills, trying to hold back the wind.
Lol
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 27, 2019, 07:28:49 pm
You guys can argue which is cheaper until the cows come home.  It won't be decided on a message board it will be decided by the private sector because they will be usually forced to use the cheapest, most efficient, most reliable energy or else their domestic and/or international competition will bury them.  Neither of your opinions matter on the subject, with all due respect.  If solar is cheaper, we're going to start seeing more and more leading businesses (not bad ones that fail) turn to solar.
Yes and no ...
There have been many forces, including science and environmentalists, who have promoted getting off fossil fuels for a very long time. Without that public will, and science and tech developments, solar and wind would not be developed to the point that they are cheaper, as they will be ... as soon as we stop subsidizing fossil fuel producers and make them pay full cost for their environmental damage.


Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 08:21:57 pm
Some things are just inevitable, TimG.
So please tell me what the difference is between your belief that zero emission technology is economically viaable and my belief that adaptation is a more cost effect way to deal with the consequences of CO2 emissions? I can at least support my view by looking at the costs of various technology options today and extrapolating a bit to take into account incremental improvements. Your view that future tech will magically solve all of the problems has no basis other than blind faith.

Why should anyone take your view seriously? Why is your view any different from a belief that god will save us all?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 27, 2019, 08:40:12 pm
So please tell me what the difference is between your belief that zero emission technology is economically viaable and my belief that adaptation is a more cost effect way to deal with the consequences of CO2 emissions?
Hmm ... maybe ya got me there!
Wait!
I know!
How 'bout ... we wind down the use of fossil fuels to cut down on emissions so it will be less disruptive and less costly to adapt to climate change?
Otherwise, the full cost of using fossil fuels becomes quite prohibitive.
Not to mention really really dumb.
Quote
I can at least support my view by looking at the costs of various technology options today and extrapolating a bit to take into account incremental improvements. Your view that future tech will magically solve all of the problems has no basis other than blind faith.
Have you looked at the improvements in renewables technology in the last decade?
Apparently not.
Quote
Why should anyone take your view seriously? Why is your view any different from a belief that god will save us all?
Didn't god create sun and wind?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 08:57:21 pm
How 'bout ... we wind down the use of fossil fuels to cut down on emissions so it will be less disruptive and less costly to adapt to climate change?
Anyone who does the math on economically plausible reductions given the tech currently available can only conclude that emission reductions will have next to zero effect on the future impacts of climate change. We will end up adapting no matter what. The only question is how much effort is wasted on futile gestures.

.Have you looked at the improvements in renewables technology in the last decade?
And all those improvements show is that wind and solar cannot meet our energy needs because of the problems created by the unreliable nature of wind and solar. These limits have become painfully obvious in every jurisdiction that has attempted to force the wide scale deployment of solar and wind.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 09:20:24 pm
Hmm ... maybe ya got me there!
Wait!
I know!
How 'bout ... we wind down the use of fossil fuels to cut down on emissions so it will be less disruptive and less costly to adapt to climate change?
Otherwise, the full cost of using fossil fuels becomes quite prohibitive.
Not to mention really really dumb.Have you looked at the improvements in renewables technology in the last decade?
Apparently not. Didn't god create sun and wind?

I suspect tim didn't have the good sense to sell hos fossil fuel shares.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2019, 09:57:26 pm
It is not that simple. If the market was left to sort it out then solar and wind would rarely be used where there is a grid because because they are not baseload or disapatchable which makes them implicitly less useful than other power sources. Governments can and have attempted to rig the market by dumping costs on non-renewables or the grid rather than subsidizing renewable power directly (e.g. with renewable mandates). In such a rigged market it could be profitable to run a solar/wind plant but it is important to remember that the market was rigged. Simply taxing fossil fuels more is rarely enough to make up for the costs incurred dealing with the unreliable nature of solar/wind.

Fair enough.  I guess we can just watch what those countries that don't care at all about climate change do with their power grid.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 10:06:22 pm
Fair enough.  I guess we can just watch what those countries that don't care at all about climate change do with their power grid.
Even then it is not that simple. Uruguay has successfully deployed close to 100% renewables because they have hydroelectric resources that are sufficient to meet the needs of their current population. However, those hydroelectric resources have a finite generation capacity so if the demand increases they will need to build fossil fuel or nuclear plants to balance any additional wind/solar capacity they add. For the same reason this model cannot be replicated in the majority of countries where the needs of their population already exceeds the generation capacity of their hydroelectric resources. That is one of the reasons why Quebec and BC can pretend to be virtuous while Atlantic Canada and Alberta are stuck with fossil fuels. When it comes to electricity generation geography matters a lot and what works in one country may not work in any other.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 27, 2019, 10:55:04 pm
Even then it is not that simple. Uruguay has successfully deployed close to 100% renewables because they have hydroelectric resources that are sufficient to meet the needs of their current population. However, those hydroelectric resources have a finite generation capacity so if the demand increases they will need to build fossil fuel or nuclear plants to balance any additional wind/solar capacity they add. For the same reason this model cannot be replicated in the majority of countries where the needs of their population already exceeds the generation capacity of their hydroelectric resources. That is one of the reasons why Quebec and BC can pretend to be virtuous while Atlantic Canada and Alberta are stuck with fossil fuels. When it comes to electricity generation geography matters a lot and what works in one country may not work in any other.
Actually B.C, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon can also "pretend to be virtuous" since they get over 80% of their electricity from hydro.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on May 27, 2019, 11:41:53 pm
Anyone who does the math on economically plausible reductions given the tech currently available can only conclude that emission reductions will have next to zero effect on the future impacts of climate change. We will end up adapting no matter what. The only question is how much effort is wasted on futile gestures.
And all those improvements show is that wind and solar cannot meet our energy needs because of the problems created by the unreliable nature of wind and solar. These limits have become painfully obvious in every jurisdiction that has attempted to force the wide scale deployment of solar and wind.
Fortunately there are better minds than yours and mine working to make renewables better and cheaper.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 27, 2019, 11:52:54 pm
Fortunately there are better minds than yours and mine working to make renewables better and cheaper.
More blind faith that some magician will pull a rabbit out of a hat. You don't make policy based on blind faith. You make policy based on what is known to be achievable.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 12:09:32 am

 You make policy based on what is known to be achievable.

Hence the ever increasing use and popularity of renewables.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 12:55:38 am
Hence the ever increasing use and popularity of renewables.
Which is not unlike the "ever increasing use of biofuels" from 20 years ago. Eventually, the hype cycle will end and governments will be forced to acknowledge that the hidden costs of renewables limit their usefulness as a power source.  Until then we will be inundated with propaganda from ideologues and crony capitalists who grossly exaggerate their capabilities and underestimate their costs.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 01:16:33 am
Which is not unlike the "ever increasing use of biofuels" from 20 years ago. Eventually, the hype cycle will end and governments will be forced to acknowledge that the hidden costs of renewables limit their usefulness as a power source.  Until then we will be inundated with propaganda from ideologues and crony capitalists who grossly exaggerate their capabilities and underestimate their costs.

Except you seem quite happy to ignore the hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. Clean ups plus subsidies. I'd rather throw a few bucks behind a power source that will be less likely to give me or the kids cancer.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 28, 2019, 10:15:22 am
It is not that simple. If the market was left to sort it out then solar and wind would rarely be used where there is a grid because because they are not baseload or disapatchable which makes them implicitly less useful than other power sources.
True, wind/solar power is not dispatchable and solar panels can't handle baseload. However, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:

- One advantage to solar panels is that its peak production happens to coincide with times of higher energy demand. It can't provide energy at night (not without some sort of storage mechanism), but demand will be lower at night anyways. So, use Nuclear/wind/hydro/etc. for the base load, and solar for the 'extra' energy requirements n the day

- There are some solar technologies that may actually be able to provide baseline power generation. Solar thermal energy (using molten salts for thermal energy storage) could be used instead of solar panels

- One of the plans for wind is to have wind farms in multiple areas of the country, so that even if the wind is not blowing in one area, other wind farms on the grid can make up for it.

I have spent a lot of effort here to promote nuclear, and I do think nuclear should be given a higher priority by governments than it is. But, I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of renewables; I just think that there are a lot of problems and that optimism regarding wind/solar should be tempered. But if they can be added to the energy mix, then great.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 28, 2019, 10:35:03 am
So please tell me what the difference is between your belief that zero emission technology is economically viaable and my belief that adaptation is a more cost effect way to deal with the consequences of CO2 emissions? I can at least support my view by looking at the costs of various technology options today and extrapolating a bit to take into account incremental improvements. Your view that future tech will magically solve all of the problems has no basis other than blind faith.
Keep in mind that one of the problems of the whole "Don't worry about CO2/global warming, just pay to adapt" is that not all the problems with global warming are happening with people who can afford to pay for the change.

So, here in Canada we have money. We can crank up the air conditioners if it gets hot. Build stronger levees to prevent flooding that might occur with climate change. But what about the people in (for example) sub-saharan Africa? They don't have the same financial resources to handle climate change as we do here in Canada.

Another problem is that sometimes adaptations simply won't work. So, you mess up the climate and can't grow food as well in places like the Holland marsh, or on the prairies... You can't just move that food production to another area where the (now warmer) client has a better growing season because the soil likely isn't appropriate.

Plus, the costs of dealing with global warming/climate change are often rather... sneaky. Take for example the cost of dealing with invasive species. Or the human health risks from things like the spread of the Zika virus. Those problems will become larger as the temperature goes up, but you won't often find those costs on a balance sheet when you do any sort of comparison.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-is-helping-invasive-species-take-over-180947630/
https://www.livescience.com/55632-deadly-diseases-emerge-from-global-warming.html

I'm not necessarily saying we need to immediately stop all fossil fuel usage. Its going to take a little time for our technology and economy to adapt to changes. But in the long run, we will be better off if we limit the use of fossil fuels than if we don't.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 28, 2019, 10:40:35 am
I just farted like 5 times, thus worsening climate change.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on May 28, 2019, 10:58:28 am
I just farted like 5 times, thus worsening climate change.
Please proceed immediately to the nearest disintegration chamber for processing.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: poochy on May 28, 2019, 09:04:32 pm
For sure. Renewables have a lot of room to grow, and will in leaps and bounds.
Currently only at 2.2%.

And we have to wind down nuclear too.
And there's the damming issue with hydro power, counted as a renewable, but iffy.

And transmission.

We have challenges.
But I believe scientists love challenges.
And capitalists will follow the money as investment shifts.

lol, this is exactly the problem the world has, dummies who have a vote but dont have ANY knowledge of science.  O sure they vote left wing so they presume its they who are scientific and everybody else is the troglodyte.

Here is how you solve climate change, you cant.

Here is how you do your best to reduce CO2 emissions in the real world, where science and technology have real limits, where the laws of thermodynamics apply and energy isn't easily obtained by hoping the sun shines.

A MASSIVE investment in nuclear technology, investing huge amounts in developing more efficient and safer Nuclear tech, completely ignoring anyone who even dares have an eco nut opinion on the subject, there is no other sustainable and feasible tech that can sustain our demands.  Now you go ahead and believe any loony tunes thing you like, because that's your right, but you are actually the problem, were it not for people like you and the anti science left nuclear tech would be farther along, and more widespread, but what we have is the opposite where politicians have run away from it because know nothings demanded they do so.

Or we can simply accept that we wont stop global warming and just prepare for the consequences, o but i know, its just a simple matter of dotting the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels.  You really don't know anything about the subject, and there are soooo many of you, you exist in a dream world.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 09:09:01 pm
lol, this is exactly the problem the world has, dummies who have a vote but dont have ANY knowledge of science.  O sure they vote left wing so they presume its they who are scientific and everybody else is the troglodyte.

Here is how you solve climate change, you cant.

Here is how you do your best to reduce CO2 emissions in the real world, where science and technology have real limits, where the laws of thermodynamics apply and energy isn't easily obtained by hoping the sun shines.

A MASSIVE investment in nuclear technology, investing huge amounts in developing more efficient and safer Nuclear tech, completely ignoring anyone who even dares have an eco nut opinion on the subject, there is no other sustainable and feasible tech that can sustain our demands.  Now you go ahead and believe any loony tunes thing you like, because that's your right, but you are actually the problem, were it not for people like you and the anti science left nuclear tech would be farther along, and more widespread, but what we have is the opposite where politicians have run away from it because know nothings demanded they do so.

Or we can simply accept that we wont stop global warming and just prepare for the consequences, o but i know, its just a simple matter of dotting the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels.  You really don't know anything about the subject, and there are soooo many of you, you exist in a dream world.

Hilarious. I suggest you take that post home to mlw where it won't be laughed at so much.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on June 13, 2019, 03:54:16 am
Why protesters should be wary of '12 years to climate breakdown' rhetoric
I helped write the IPCC 1.5°C report the number apparently comes from. But the truth is better – and worse – than that.

https://theconversation.com/why-protesters-should-be-wary-of-12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric-115489

As the relevant lead author of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, I spent several days last October, literally under a spotlight, explaining to delegates of the world’s governments what we could, and could not, say about how close we are to that level of warming.
...
I say the majority, because there will be unfortunate exceptions. One of the most insidious myths about climate change is the pretence that we are all in it together. People ask me whether I’m kept awake at night by the prospect of five degrees of warming. I don’t think we’ll make it to five degrees. I’m far more worried about geopolitical breakdown as the injustices of climate change emerge as we steam from two to three degrees.

What about the other interpretation of the IPCC’s 12 years: that we have 12 years to act? What our report said was, in scenarios with a one-in-two to two-in-three chance of keeping global warming below 1.5°C, emissions are reduced to around half their present level by 2030. That doesn’t mean we have 12 years to act: it means we have to act now, and even if we do, success is not guaranteed.

And if we don’t halve emissions by 2030, will we have lost the battle and just have to hunker down and survive? Of course not. The IPCC is clear that, even reducing emissions as fast as possible, we can barely keep temperatures below 1.5°C. So every year that goes by in which we aren’t reducing emissions is another 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ that we are expecting today’s teenagers to clean back out of the atmosphere in order to preserve warm water corals or Arctic ice.

Assuming people will still want to feed themselves and not turn the world over to biofuels, then scrubbing CO₂ out of the atmosphere currently costs £150-£500 per tonne, plus the cost of permanent disposal. So those 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ represent a clean-up liability accumulating at a cool £8 trillion per year, which is more or less what the world currently spends on energy.

So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 13, 2019, 09:21:16 am
Why protesters should be wary of '12 years to climate breakdown' rhetoric

I'm all for preventing human-caused climate change, but the 12 years-or-doom rhetoric is pretty ridiculous.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on June 13, 2019, 09:57:29 am
I'm not necessarily saying we need to immediately stop all fossil fuel usage. Its going to take a little time for our technology and economy to adapt to changes. But in the long run, we will be better off if we limit the use of fossil fuels than if we don't.
I am fine with investing in technology that is economical and actually replaces what we already have. The issue is there are few options available to use and some of those (nuclear) are not politically viable. The net result is adaptation is not a choice: it is the only option we have. My main concern about the mitigation or nothing activists is they are pushing govt to make promises that we can't keep based on delusional fantasies. This diverts resources from spending on things that might  actually help and, in the worse case, damage our economy in ways that leave us less able to adapt as needed.

CO2 mitigation causes real harm if it means future adaption is harder.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on June 13, 2019, 09:59:45 am
I'm all for preventing human-caused climate change, but the 12 years-or-doom rhetoric is pretty ridiculous.
They have been saying that for the last 30 years. The end is always just around the corner. What is amazing is these people completely lack any self awareness and keep making these claims even though they have been discredited over and over.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on June 13, 2019, 10:21:08 am
My main concern about the mitigation or nothing activists is they are pushing govt to make promises that we can't keep based on delusional fantasies. This diverts resources from spending on things that might  actually help and, in the worse case, damage our economy in ways that leave us less able to adapt as needed.

megaStrawman! Name your so-called "mitigation or nothing" activists... name them!

CO2 mitigation causes real harm if it means future adaption is harder.

yabut, unless emissions are reduced... stabilized... waddabout adaptation upon adaptation upon adaptation... no biggee, hey!
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on June 13, 2019, 10:30:46 am
I'm all for preventing human-caused climate change, but the 12 years-or-doom rhetoric is pretty ridiculous.

and the scientist's 'The Conversation' article... and its linked to Guardian article aren't pushing said "doom rhetoric" - speaking to temperature rise and recognized/expected impacts isn't "doom rhetoric"! Did you actually read the articles?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 13, 2019, 02:37:29 pm
and the scientist's 'The Conversation' article... and its linked to Guardian article aren't pushing said "doom rhetoric" - speaking to temperature rise and recognized/expected impacts isn't "doom rhetoric"! Did you actually read the articles?

Not doom rhetoric?  "Climate change catastrophe!"  Pictures of burning fires out of control!  Scarrry AHHHHHHHHH!

[attachimg=1]


"Overwhelmed by climate change? Here's what you can do!".  Ya, don't read the Guardian LOL.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on June 13, 2019, 10:12:33 pm
I am fine with investing in technology that is economical and actually replaces what we already have. The issue is there are few options available to use and some of those (nuclear) are not politically viable. The net result is adaptation is not a choice: it is the only option we have. My main concern about the mitigation or nothing activists is they are pushing govt to make promises that we can't keep based on delusional fantasies. This diverts resources from spending on things that might  actually help and, in the worse case, damage our economy in ways that leave us less able to adapt as needed.

CO2 mitigation causes real harm if it means future adaption is harder.

Such horsesh!t.
Anything to keep the oil money flowing, eh?!

Quote
They have been saying that for the last 30 years. The end is always just around the corner. What is amazing is these people completely lack any self awareness and keep making these claims even though they have been discredited over and over.

Nonsense.

and the scientist's 'The Conversation' article... and its linked to Guardian article aren't pushing said "doom rhetoric" - speaking to temperature rise and recognized/expected impacts isn't "doom rhetoric"! Did you actually read the articles?

No of course not.
He has a programmed CAPP sales pitch to deliver that shall not be distracted by facts.  Lol
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on June 20, 2019, 01:16:48 pm
We need to move forward and implement cleaner technologies. More Recycling. More Conservation.

What we don't need is governments who think we can tax our way out of the problem.

Carbon Pricing needs to be pretty steep to stop people from actually travelling to a work place. And what if Carbon Pricing was so high that people stopped travelling to parts of the world that rely on tourism?

The Federal Carbon Pricing plan does very little to curb emissions. People just absorb the costs and continue with life as normal.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on June 20, 2019, 01:31:45 pm
The Federal Carbon Pricing plan does very little to curb emissions. People just absorb the costs and continue with life as normal.
The trouble with the economic models that make most economists think that carbon pricing is wonderful is the models don't care if people suffer by going without because it costs too much or if they actually found an alternative that lets them do the same thing without emissions. All the models care about is demand CO2 emission producing activities goes down. Politicians, OTOH, have to care if a policy results in suffering even if it reduces emissions.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on June 20, 2019, 01:39:14 pm
We need to move forward and implement cleaner technologies. More Recycling. More Conservation.

What we don't need is governments who think we can tax our way out of the problem.

Carbon Pricing needs to be pretty steep to stop people from actually travelling to a work place. And what if Carbon Pricing was so high that people stopped travelling to parts of the world that rely on tourism?

The Federal Carbon Pricing plan does very little to curb emissions. People just absorb the costs and continue with life as normal.

Actually the stats show that the BC carbon tax (first in Canada) that has been in place a decade has reduced emissions between 5-15% depending on the area of the province, and been revenue neutral. People still go to work but many are taking public transit where it's available, and where it's not they drive more efficiently such as making one trip work to get things done when they used to make three. 
Also, EV's are flying off the shelves here as fast as the manufacturers can keep up.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: TimG on June 20, 2019, 01:48:46 pm
Actually the stats show that the BC carbon tax (first in Canada) that has been in place a decade has reduced emissions between 5-15% depending on the area of the province, and been revenue neutral.
There is no compelling evidence of a causal relationship given the fact that the 2008 down turn hit at the same time. Emissions have been rising in recent years and it is no longer revenue neutral.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on June 20, 2019, 02:27:56 pm
There is no compelling evidence of a causal relationship given the fact that the 2008 down turn hit at the same time. Emissions have been rising in recent years and it is no longer revenue neutral.

 Province wide emissions have increased somewhat in BC simply due to population increase. Individual GHG emissions continue to decline. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on June 21, 2019, 11:38:55 am
If EVs were:
1) widely available
2) more affordable

You'd see way more emission reductions than a punitive carbon tax.

Now how to achieve that? Who knows? Hybrids are way more common now as they've been on the market for more than a decade. My current car is a second-hand hybrid. I'm hopeful that when I'm on the market for another car, I can get a Second-Hand EV for under $20,000.

We can all concede there are no bigger ripoffs than that of a brand new car. You buy a second-hand car off a lease and you get way better value.

The irony, at least here in Ontario, with the price of oil being so volatile, the price of gas can drop to completely negate the effects of the Carbon tax. Which is what we've seen in the past few weeks, and we'll see again next winter when people don't drive nearly as much.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on July 12, 2019, 10:31:12 am
We need to move forward and implement cleaner technologies. More Recycling. More Conservation.

What we don't need is governments who think we can tax our way out of the problem.
Keep in mind that some recycling programs are not economically feasible without additional government investment (which, of course, involves using tax money to do so).
Quote
Carbon Pricing needs to be pretty steep to stop people from actually travelling to a work place.
A carbon tax wouldn't necessarily need to stop all work-place commuting to be effective. Encouraging people to (for example) buy smaller cars (so good-old-boy bubba decides to buy a Honda Civic instead of a Canyonero), or perhaps telecommute one day a week. Or maybe get them to go for a bike ride on the weekend instead of a drive in the country.
Quote
And what if Carbon Pricing was so high that people stopped travelling to parts of the world that rely on tourism?
And what if, as a result of climate change, those tourist areas lose their business because they either get flooded out, or the weather is no longer appropriate?

Quote
The Federal Carbon Pricing plan does very little to curb emissions.
It is true that the effectiveness of Carbon Pricing is inconclusive. And its quite likely that it, by itself, will not be enough to deal  with climate change.

But even if its only partially effective, we are better to use it (especially along with a range of other solutions, such as more investment in nuclear) than not.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on July 12, 2019, 10:38:59 am
If EVs were:
1) widely available
2) more affordable

You'd see way more emission reductions than a punitive carbon tax.

Now how to achieve that? Who knows?
Your right... who knows? The government doesn't have many options to manipulate the car market, and making electric vehicles cheaper would probably require government subsidies. (And many people would argue that its not the government's job to subsidize auto manufacturers (even if its with the goal of reducing carbon emissions.)

So, a carbon tax may be imperfect, but it is about the only option.

Quote
The irony, at least here in Ontario, with the price of oil being so volatile, the price of gas can drop to completely negate the effects of the Carbon tax. Which is what we've seen in the past few weeks, and we'll see again next winter when people don't drive nearly as much.
Yes, the regular changes in gas prices may overwhelm whatever carbon tax exists.

But, I think people are hoping that with a 5 cent carbon tax, people will notice that "Gee gas prices never fall below $1/litre anymore" (or whatever price point) and plan their next car purchase appropriately.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on July 12, 2019, 11:05:48 am
The trouble with the economic models that make most economists think that carbon pricing is wonderful is the models don't care if people suffer by going without because it costs too much or if they actually found an alternative that lets them do the same thing without emissions. All the models care about is demand CO2 emission producing activities goes down. Politicians, OTOH, have to care if a policy results in suffering even if it reduces emissions.
I guess the question is: who do you think would be suffering, and why?

Many jurisdictions that have implemented carbon taxes have attempted to keep them revenue neutral, either through a reduction of other taxes (such as income tax or corporate tax) or rebates. So for a certain segment of the population, they will see their overall taxes stay constant (or even go down). Lower income people will probably be better off, since they tend not to use personal vehicles or live in large single-family homes (and any increases in the costs of food or other purchased goods caused by the carbon taxes would be more than offset by rebates or other tax reductions).

I personally will probably find carbon taxes neutral... I do have a vehicle, but its a fairly small one, I live in the city and have a short commute to work, and my home is a town home (easier to heat).

The people who will end up paying more are those who, well, use more carbon... those people who commute further, drive bigger vehicles, crank up their furnace in the winter, etc. But then, while they may end up paying more, they were initially causing more harm to the environment in the first place.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on July 12, 2019, 12:15:06 pm
In the wake of yesterdays incident involving clear air turbulance on an Air Canada flight  that injured 37 passengers, I just listened to an interview with a professor of atmospheric science  who suggests that CAT is on the increase in part due to global warming. Of course there are a lot of emissions pouring out of the back ends of airliner engines at 35000 ft. and that that heating can cause basically spin offs from such air currents as the jet stream, which are not only invisible to the pilots eyes but also to the airborne radar so theres no way to steer around them until you are bouncing around in them. His prognosis is that such encounters with CAT could double or even triple over the next decade. The good news is that a technology is being developed called "LIDAR" as opposed to RADAR which uses LIght instead of radio waves to look ahead and which can detect the CAT. So far though it is too heavy and too expensive to be installed on planes anytime soon. My advice, keep your seatbelt fastened while seated.   
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on July 12, 2019, 01:55:47 pm
Thunderstorms a plenty around the equator, lines of great big ones that go up over 40,000 ft. That flight is always dodging them on radar during the black of an equatorial night. Looks like they ran into something that didn't show. Happens now and again.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on July 12, 2019, 02:20:34 pm
Yes except this one had nought to do with t-storms. As has been reported this was that nasty old Clear Air Turbulence you can't see as you can a T-storm.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on July 12, 2019, 02:53:52 pm
Yes except this one had nought to do with t-storms. As has been reported this was that nasty old Clear Air Turbulence you can't see as you can a T-storm.

CAT is normally associate with mechanical turbulence over mountains or wind sheer but you can get it around storms as well.  We were cruising along down there one night, don't remember the altitude but between 310 and 350 for sure and while there were storms around, there was nothing close on the radar and it was smooth. All of a sudden we started going up like an elevator, the autopilot couldn't hold the altitude and tripped off. We must have gained about 1500 ft in a few seconds and then it stopped. We descended back to our assigned altitude and continued on like it never happened.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 24, 2019, 09:40:03 am
Canada’s amazing—and invisible—green energy sector:

Clean energy attracts billions in investment every year, employs many thousands of Canadians, and grows more than the rest of the economy.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/canadas-amazing-and-invisible-green-energy-sector/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1563918184

This week, a barn burner of a report was released into an increasingly flammable world by Clean Energy Canada, a non-profit think tank based out of Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University. The report revealed that Canada’s clean energy sector is growing faster than the rest of the country’s economy. It turns out that the clean energy sector—arguably the unsexy sector that we don’t even notice—grew a full third, percentage-wise, more than the wider economy between 2010 and 2017.

Excellent news!
We're making progress.
This confirms my thoughts that ... if there's money yo be made, business people will naturally turn their attention to clean energy.
Now clean energy is in the boom times!


Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 28, 2019, 06:06:01 pm
UN Report Says Indigenous Sovereignty Could Save the Planet

https://truthout.org/articles/un-report-says-indigenous-sovereignty-could-save-the-planet/

While humans have “significantly altered” about three quarters of land-based environments and two-thirds marine environments, these trends have been less severe or avoided altogether in areas held or managed by Indigenous peoples and “local communities.”

This means that Earth’s resources are protected in areas preserved for and by Indigenous people and managed by communities that enjoy some autonomy from global economic forces and tend to use resources sustainably. However, these areas often face the most pressure from deforestation, fossil fuel production and mineral mining, putting both the stewards of pristine lands and waters and their knowledge for managing them at risk, according to the report.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 28, 2019, 08:17:59 pm
UN Report Says Indigenous Sovereignty Could Save the Planet

So basically poor isolated less populated rural communities don't disrupt the environment as much as wealthier populated urban communities.

Quote
Global “Development” Drives Extinction.  The U.N. assessment covers the past five decades, in which the human population has doubled and global economic development and trade have exploded, along with the demand for food, fuel, timber and other resources.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: cybercoma on July 29, 2019, 08:07:12 am
It's quite a bit more than that. The indigenous relationship to the land and environment is inherent to their identity and culture. It's one of respect and reverence. Capitalist economies around the world have a relationship with the environment predicated entirely on exploitation: exploitation of the land, exploitation of resources, exploitation of people. When they talk about indigenous sovereignty, they're referencing a way of conceptualizing humanity's relationship to the natural environment that is symbiotic, deeply reverent, and intrinsic to our health, well-being, and survival.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 29, 2019, 08:30:22 am
Canada’s amazing—and invisible—green energy sector:

Clean energy attracts billions in investment every year, employs many thousands of Canadians, and grows more than the rest of the economy.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/canadas-amazing-and-invisible-green-energy-sector/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1563918184

This week, a barn burner of a report was released into an increasingly flammable world by Clean Energy Canada, a non-profit think tank based out of Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University. The report revealed that Canada’s clean energy sector is growing faster than the rest of the country’s economy. It turns out that the clean energy sector—arguably the unsexy sector that we don’t even notice—grew a full third, percentage-wise, more than the wider economy between 2010 and 2017.

Excellent news!
We're making progress.
This confirms my thoughts that ... if there's money to be made, business people will naturally turn their attention to clean energy.
Now clean energy is in the boom times!
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 29, 2019, 10:05:42 am
It's quite a bit more than that. The indigenous relationship to the land and environment is inherent to their identity and culture. It's one of respect and reverence. Capitalist economies around the world have a relationship with the environment predicated entirely on exploitation: exploitation of the land, exploitation of resources, exploitation of people. When they talk about indigenous sovereignty, they're referencing a way of conceptualizing humanity's relationship to the natural environment that is symbiotic, deeply reverent, and intrinsic to our health, well-being, and survival.

That’s a very romantic notion, but total bullshit.   Indigenous peoples exploit resources here as much as anyone else when they have the means to do so. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on July 29, 2019, 12:56:55 pm
So basically poor isolated less populated rural communities don't disrupt the environment as much as wealthier populated urban communities.

A swing and a miss.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on July 29, 2019, 04:09:05 pm
UN Report Says Indigenous Sovereignty Could Save the Planet

https://truthout.org/articles/un-report-says-indigenous-sovereignty-could-save-the-planet/

While humans have “significantly altered” about three quarters of land-based environments and two-thirds marine environments, these trends have been less severe or avoided altogether in areas held or managed by Indigenous peoples and “local communities.”

This means that Earth’s resources are protected in areas preserved for and by Indigenous people and managed by communities that enjoy some autonomy from global economic forces and tend to use resources sustainably. However, these areas often face the most pressure from deforestation, fossil fuel production and mineral mining, putting both the stewards of pristine lands and waters and their knowledge for managing them at risk, according to the report.

It's quite a bit more than that. The indigenous relationship to the land and environment is inherent to their identity and culture. It's one of respect and reverence. Capitalist economies around the world have a relationship with the environment predicated entirely on exploitation: exploitation of the land, exploitation of resources, exploitation of people. When they talk about indigenous sovereignty, they're referencing a way of conceptualizing humanity's relationship to the natural environment that is symbiotic, deeply reverent, and intrinsic to our health, well-being, and survival.

so, uhhh... how will this group show its, as you say, "respect and reverence"? How will the group express your stated relationship with the environment - one not predicated {entirely} on, as you say, "exploitation"?

... and the latest development introduces a possibility of an Indigenous-led group purchasing a majority stake in the TMX pipeline (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/project-reconciliation-indigenous-trans-mountain-1.5197303)
 
notwithstanding Indigenous groups partnering won't necessarily stop other groups challenging TMX, and accepting to the most positive outcome for the peoples of participating Indigenous groups, would (most) Canadians accept majority control of TMX being in the hands of Indigenous groups?
It is said the majority of the 134 First Nations represented by the IRC are interested in buying TMX; it's chief executive, Stephen Buffalo, emphasizes:
Quote
We all want a safe and proper environment; the environment is so key. But we can continue to still do some economic development and have that balance. And that's what we need to strive for — to find that balance.

would Canadians, overall, accept First Nations finding that balance between the environment and resource development? In any case, I await responses from some of the key Provincial Premiers - as much as Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been all over touting a partnership with First Nations groups, what will he say about ownership control... and then there's weakSauce Scheer (waiting to be told what to say by his handlers!).

on edit to add:

seems the eager-beavers couldn't wait: Indigenous-led group submits unsolicited bid to buy Trans Mountain pipeline (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/project-reconciliation-trans-mountain-1.5224374)

Quote
Indigenous-led group Project Reconciliation has submitted a preliminary proposal to the federal government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline.

A federal government official confirmed to CBC News that the proposal has been received, but the government is not yet accepting formal bids.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 29, 2019, 08:39:36 pm
It's quite a bit more than that. The indigenous relationship to the land and environment is inherent to their identity and culture. It's one of respect and reverence. Capitalist economies around the world have a relationship with the environment predicated entirely on exploitation: exploitation of the land, exploitation of resources, exploitation of people. When they talk about indigenous sovereignty, they're referencing a way of conceptualizing humanity's relationship to the natural environment that is symbiotic, deeply reverent, and intrinsic to our health, well-being, and survival.

Indigenous people, if we can even generalize a ton of different groups across the world, are also terribly poor, and often have subsistence economies. Subsistence, pre-industrial economies have usually always been sustainable.  Indigenous economies like all subsistence economies around the world are often very poor, with horrible outcomes in health, education, violence etc., just as they were pre-Columbus.

These groups are in no position to tell anybody how to run an economy, they have no idea how to run a modern industrial economy sustainably.  I'd like society to live a lot more sustainably but I don't want to live like aboriginals either, though I'm sure we can learn some things from them. The competitive nature of the international economy has always been a race to the bottom by its very nature, regardless of capitalism and even centuries before industrialization.  Economic development means using natural resources like land, trees etc.  Maintaining a city of people means plowing over huge masses of land to house and feed people.  There's no easy answers here.  Romanticizing the "noble savages" as our saviours, as the article did, will fix little.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on July 29, 2019, 08:46:54 pm
Maybe addressing actual science would move the conversation along. AGW is real no matter what neighborhood you live in.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 29, 2019, 08:49:01 pm
Maybe addressing actual science would move the conversation along. AGW is real no matter what neighborhood you live in.

Yes i'd like to see evidence about indigenous stewardship of the environment.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on July 29, 2019, 09:18:44 pm
Yes i'd like to see evidence about indigenous stewardship of the environment.

Well let's see, was it the Natives who shot all the buffalo, damned all the rivers, and laid down the tracks for Mr. Peabody's coal train? This thread shouldn't be about pointing fingers, but about addressing science.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 29, 2019, 09:57:35 pm
Well let's see, was it the Natives who shot all the buffalo, damned all the rivers, and laid down the tracks for Mr. Peabody's coal train? This thread shouldn't be about pointing fingers, but about addressing science.

This thread is about addressing climate change.  Did the natives build the economies (including dams and coal trains) that invented the technologies that produced the medicine that saved or improved billions of lives?  This may be harsh but it's easy for a group to be holier than thou on the environment when their economic & technological activity amounts to very little.

How about all of the "indigenous" Africans and east/south asians who flood their rivers with **** and **** and mountains of garbage?

My point is North American aboriginals aren't a model for sustainability because their economics aren't compatible or desirable for most of us.  We need to invent a new model of sustainability that is compatible with modern industrialization and economic growth, unless we want to live in the stone age again.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on July 29, 2019, 10:03:44 pm
This thread is about addressing climate change.  Did the natives build the economies (including dams and coal trains) that invented the technologies that produced the medicine that saved or improved billions of lives?  This may be harsh but it's easy for a group to be holier than thou on the environment when their economic & technological activity amounts to very little.

How about all of the "indigenous" Africans and east/south asians who flood their rivers with **** and **** and mountains of garbage?

My point is North American aboriginals aren't a model for sustainability because their economics aren't compatible or desirable for most of us.  We need to invent a new model of sustainability that is compatible with modern industrialization and economic growth, unless we want to live in the stone age again.

You're still simply trying to pint fingers. Get over it.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 29, 2019, 11:39:17 pm
You're still simply trying to pint fingers. Get over it.

Climate change is all your fault.  I kid, i kid.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 29, 2019, 11:48:53 pm
Indigenous people, if we can even generalize a ton of different groups across the world, are also terribly poor, and often have subsistence economies. Subsistence, pre-industrial economies have usually always been sustainable.  Indigenous economies like all subsistence economies around the world are often very poor, with horrible outcomes in health, education, violence etc., just as they were pre-Columbus.

These groups are in no position to tell anybody how to run an economy, they have no idea how to run a modern industrial economy sustainably.
Wow. Generalized and stereotyped.
The IRC [Indian Resource Council] represents 134 First Nations that have oil and gas resources on their land.
Not all First Nations communities fit your stereotype. The Indian Resource Council has existed since 1987. These are in western provinces with experience in oil and gas.
Quote
I'd like society to live a lot more sustainably but I don't want to live like aboriginals either,
Wow. That's pretty ... !!!
Quote
though I'm sure we can learn some things from them.
Ya, you could learn some manners.

Quote
The competitive nature of the international economy has always been a race to the bottom by its very nature, regardless of capitalism and even centuries before industrialization.  Economic development means using natural resources like land, trees etc.
That isn't a sustainable economy. We need to stop that.
Quote
  Maintaining a city of people means plowing over huge masses of land to house and feed people.  There's no easy answers here.  Romanticizing the "noble savages" as our saviours, as the article did, will fix little.
We could listen. We have a lot to learn from their thousands of years of oral knowledge.

I find this all pretty bigoted.
There are lots of successful Indigenous business people, PG. Your knowledge is minimal, and very stereotyped.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 30, 2019, 12:06:44 am
This thread is about addressing climate change.  Did the natives build the economies (including dams and coal trains) that invented the technologies that produced the medicine that saved or improved billions of lives?  This may be harsh but it's easy for a group to be holier than thou on the environment when their economic & technological activity amounts to very little.
What we've built isn't sustainable. We need a better model for our economy.
Quote
How about all of the "indigenous" Africans and east/south asians who flood their rivers with **** and **** and mountains of garbage?
How about our trillions of litres of toxic waste 'ponds'?
Again, the racism. Are you aware of that?
Quote
My point is North American aboriginals aren't a model for sustainability because their economics aren't compatible or desirable for most of us.  We need to invent a new model of sustainability that is compatible with modern industrialization and economic growth, unless we want to live in the stone age again.
We need a different economy. If it isn't sustainable, it ain't worth ****.
It's a false, obsolete economy.
We need to get more intelligent.than destroying the earth and the systems that sustain us.
Chewing off our own arms.
Pretty dumb.
Indigenous people have been trying to tell us that for a long time.
They know we're doomed on our current path.
Do you not know that?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on July 30, 2019, 12:35:33 am
Climate change is all your fault.  I kid, i kid.

You could be right. My job required me to lay down a pretty big carbon footprint.
I'm trying to make up for it these days. I walk a lot and heat my house with hydro.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on July 30, 2019, 12:39:36 am
We need to get more intelligent.than destroying the earth and the systems that sustain us.
.
Indigenous people have been trying to tell us that for a long time. They know we're doomed on our current path. Do you not know that?

per their purchase proposal, if the Indigenous led Project Reconciliation group were to gain majority ownership of TMX, how do you envision they'll help stave off your expressed 'current path doom'? What alternate path do you picture they would follow?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 30, 2019, 07:36:21 am
Wow. Generalized and stereotyped.
The IRC [Indian Resource Council] represents 134 First Nations that have oil and gas resources on their land.
Not all First Nations communities fit your stereotype. The Indian Resource Council has existed since 1987. These are in western provinces with experience in oil and gas.

First Nations with experience in oil and gas are not using sustainable economies.  Find me some indigenous communities in Canada that have successful  economies that are also environmentally sustainable.  I doubt any exist, and if they do, are extremely rare.

Wow. That's pretty ... !!!

It's the truth.  I'm sure you and your family wouldn't like to live like the vast majority of First Nations communities do either.

Quote
Ya, you could learn some manners.

You're in no position to lecture anyone about manners.

Quote
I find this all pretty bigoted.
There are lots of successful Indigenous business people, PG. Your knowledge is minimal, and very stereotyped.

Facts aren't bigoted, but is sometimes uncomfortable, we shouldn't sugarcoat the truth for the PC police. Sure there are successful indigenous business people, but that's a strawman as i'm not talking about individuals i'm talking about communities.  Show me all of these many economically successful indigenous communities that are environmentally sustainable.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 30, 2019, 07:45:41 am
What we've built isn't sustainable. We need a better model for our economy.
...
We need to get more intelligent.than destroying the earth and the systems that sustain us.

Yes i agree.  My argument is that we won't find the solution in aboriginal economies because they have found sustainability in pre-industrial economic ways of life.  I'm sure there are some if not many things we can learn from them, but what we need are sustainable solutions to industrial economies.  Things like green energy and ways to power cities and vehicles etc.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 30, 2019, 08:13:08 pm
First Nations with experience in oil and gas are not using sustainable economies. Find me some indigenous communities in Canada that have successful  economies that are also environmentally sustainable.  I doubt any exist, and if they do, are extremely rare.

It's the truth.  I'm sure you and your family wouldn't like to live like the vast majority of First Nations communities do either.

You're in no position to lecture anyone about manners.

Facts aren't bigoted, but is sometimes uncomfortable, we shouldn't sugarcoat the truth for the PC police. Sure there are successful indigenous business people, but that's a strawman as i'm not talking about individuals i'm talking about communities.  Show me all of these many economically successful indigenous communities that are environmentally sustainable.

Indigenous Peoples struggle under burdens that our governments and society have placed on them. What you refer to is the First Nations societies that WE have created through destruction. I see no acknowledgement of that in your denigrating post of drive-by smears. It isn't "fact": You haven't provided facts, just your opinions that seem quite uninformed, biased and dismissive to me.
 First Nations governments, Elected Band Councils, are Canada's governments, forcibly imposed on Indigenous Peoples in the 1920's.

The article posted is referring to traditional Indigenous knowledge of Mother Earth. For example, there is a reason that our Treaties allow us to live on/use the land "to a plough's depth": Because disturbing the earth, disrupting the earth's systems, is dangerous to humans and destructive to the earth that sustains us.

In addition to genocide, we have destroyed the environment that sustained Indigenous Peoples:
- Killed all the buffalo so they couldn't live off them anymore ... and so they wouldn't interfere with the railway and farming.
- Clearcut the forests ... "The trees are gone, the animals are gone, the geese don't come anymore."
- Contaminated the watersheds with mining, oil, gas, etc., so they can't even drink the water or eat the fish.
- Contaminated land and water with livestock/farming chemicals and depleted the soil with over-use.

We like to think of the North as clean and pristine, but the reality is that there are few northern communities that are not polluted in some way by the unsustainable, destructive resource-based economy that we have imposed in Canada, that make it unlikely that for Indigenous people and ourselves to live off the land.

Now ... we have to seek a balance of taking from the earth and giving back, and Traditional Indigenous knowledge, based in thousands of years of living sustainably, is a good source of information to assist with that.

The earth is not a static blob of matter, but living systems: Coal is the liver of the earth, collecting impurities and toxins. Digging coal is disrupting the ability of the earth to cleanse itself. Burning toxic coal is poisoning ourselves and the land, spreading those toxins throughout the air, soil and waters ... and depleting the coal that would cleanse it.
Etc, for gold, silver, gems, oil, gas  ... all serve a purpose in sustaining the earth's systems so that the earth can sustain itself and human life.

There are many delicate balances in nature that we have ignored, while scrabbling for the 'easy money' by simply cutting/digging/drilling out and selling the earth's valuable commodities ... 'chewing off our own arms' ... making the earth uninhabitable for future generations.

Traditional Indigenous knowledge is far ahead of us. They are proved right over and over again, in hindsight. We are wise to collaborate with them in planning for a future sustainable economy.

Considering Aboriginal traditional knowledge in environmental assessments conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act -- Interim Principles
https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4A795E76-1
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: eyeball on July 31, 2019, 12:51:14 am
Yes i agree.  My argument is that we won't find the solution in aboriginal economies because they have found sustainability in pre-industrial economic ways of life.  I'm sure there are some if not many things we can learn from them, but what we need are sustainable solutions to industrial economies.  Things like green energy and ways to power cities and vehicles etc.
What you can find in some aboriginal communities especially where modern treaties are being negotiated is the opportunity to try new resource management approaches that are rooted communally and are based on traditional ecological knowledge.

Heck, I know salmon habitat and enhancement guerillas who carry spawning gravel by backpack to local creeks in their effort to do what DFO refuses to do and even worse won't allow.

What we could really stand to learn from the more outspoken indigenous is to tell Ottawa to **** off and assert a little autonomy.  Popular mostly non-indigenous revolutions coalesced around indigenous aspirations are not without precedent.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on July 31, 2019, 08:29:06 am
Yes i agree.  My argument is that we won't find the solution in aboriginal economies because they have found sustainability in pre-industrial economic ways of life.  I'm sure there are some if not many things we can learn from them, but what we need are sustainable solutions to industrial economies.  Things like green energy and ways to power cities and vehicles etc.

Yes we certainly do need sustainable solutions to industrial economies and in our bullheaded and 'bandwagon' ways, we may make huge mistakes again, in the name of capitalism and private profit, as we have with over-reliance on fossil fuels. If we include Traditional Indigenous Knowledge in our planning, we'll make fewer mistakes. 

Elders told me that geothermal and tidal power are not solutions because long term, they are too disruptive to the earth's systems and sea creatures and are also vulnerable to disruption by climate and geological events.
They support wind power, especially the newer technologies (tube turbines that minimize noise/vibration and bird deaths). Also localized installation minimizing transmission, as transmission is very vulnerable to climate and geological disruption. Minimizing the necessity for 'migration' due to climate change and geological disruption is important in minimizing public costs and economic disruption.
Everybody should have a local, on/off the grid power source - solar and/or wind - to 'survive in place'.

Capitalism won't do that for us. They prefer the money to be made in transmission ... but transmission is not sustainable through climate change, and the infrastructure is ecologically destructive. (EG, Pipelines through wetlands that filter and clean the water for a whole watershed? Really?!!)

Indigenous Peoples see the past and the future, spiritually, perhaps, but also in a very practical sense because in their thousands of years of preserved memories, they've seen extreme climate and geologic disruption, and they can evaluate the long term viability of technologies for our future.

I'm not going to do your research on economies of Indigenous communities. I'll leave that for you to investigate yourself. (If you haven't done so, perhaps you shouldn't be dismissing them with  generalized, stereotyped and prejudiced  remarks.

Consider this: Some Indigenous communities have been able to earn capital from revenues accruing from industry developments in their territories, and use that capital to develop businesses that help their communities become self-sustaining. Others have not had access to such revenues. Throughout Canada's history, the Federal governments have stalled and evaded releasing money from Indigenous Trust Funds  to them for economic development, because local and other businesses DON'T WANT COMPETITION FROM INDIGENOUS BUSINESSES. That political/competitive pressure has been constant, and has disrupted many of their efforts at economic development.

Also, at least half of Indigenous people do not live on reserves, and their families may not have for several/many generations. Though they may maintain ties to their original communities, Nations and cultures, they are raised, educated and employed in our communities.

Indigenous Peoples have a lot of knowledge that can help us avoid mistakes in the future, and also a diversity in perspectives, economies, locations, societies and cultures across the country.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on August 20, 2019, 05:22:45 pm
Hydrogen power?

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html

"This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output".
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on August 20, 2019, 06:50:19 pm
"This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground...

Sounds interesting. They didn't really address in what form the carbon is left, and how stable it will be. Does it bind to the oxygen they pump in, and form C02 which can seep out later?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 27, 2019, 09:35:19 am
Just an anecdote.

I recently had a sizeable maintenance bill for my conventional gasoline car. I decided to start kicking the tires on a new PHEV or Complete EV. I already own another conventional Hybrid.

Almost all EVs on the market are north of $50,000. With most being closer to $70,000 or more.

What's more affordable is a PHEV which gives you an electric charge for a modest distance (30-50kms or so) then it becomes a conventional Hybrid. In Ontario those cars qualify for a Green Plate which allows you to use HOV lanes solo for free. Conventional Hybrids don't qualify for a Green Plate.

I've never actually purchased a new car. I always either leased or bought cars off of a lease, which are still well maintained with relatively low kms. But I always thought the benefit for buying new is the good financing terms.

No so with these "Green" cars! The Feds give $5,000 or $2,500 respectively but you never really appreciate that because it's baked into the offer(and applicable to Sales Tax!!!!).

The lowest rate for a Green Car I saw was 2.5%. For Toyota's Prius you had a rate closer to 5%. For that rate, you might as well find a used car and finance with a Line of Credit or something.

A salesmen basically said that the demand is too high and the supply too low for us to offer an appealing rate.

If car companies and governments were serious about us reducing carbon, they'd make it way more appealing to buy such cars. Stop making gas guzzling SUVs and increase the supply of Green cars.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 27, 2019, 11:15:37 am
Kia Soul EV is <$45k

Nissan Leaf is same. 

There are options under $45k - rebates.   Don’t know if anyone has good financing rates. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 27, 2019, 12:38:34 pm
Kia Soul EV is <$45k

Nissan Leaf is same. 

There are options under $45k - rebates.   Don’t know if anyone has good financing rates.

Base model, plus taxes and fees. Close to 50,000. I checked, the Leaf is being offered at 4.5%.

And the Leaf and the Soul are tiny hatchbacks.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 27, 2019, 01:25:11 pm
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE PAYING$40k for a NEW CAR?!?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 27, 2019, 02:24:03 pm
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE PAYING$40k for a NEW CAR?!?

People with a disposable income who can afford it and who, evidently, have different priorities than yourself. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 27, 2019, 02:29:07 pm
People with a disposable income who can afford it and who, evidently, have different priorities than yourself.

And catering to only those people aren't going to do squat to fix the "climate crisis".

Hey that person choose Tesla over a Land Rover. Slow Clap.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 27, 2019, 02:56:42 pm
How much would you spend on a new car MH?

How much did you spend on a house?

Hypothetically speaking, if I spent $135k on my house and it’s paid off and now valued at $420k or so, do you think we’re in a different financial position and I might be able to put more money into a car if I chose to than someone who just bought in Toronto?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on August 27, 2019, 03:13:36 pm
Aside from other considerations it is initial affordability. Over a long term, electric cars will be more cost effective. Maintenance will consist of not much more than tires, brakes and wiper blades and the cost of fuel will be a fraction of an IC powered car. If an EV fits your lifestyle and you are going to keep it more than five years, it would be the way to go. Many of the newer ones have on board chargers so all you need is a standard 220V outlet at your home for stage two charging.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 27, 2019, 03:33:54 pm
How much would you spend on a new car MH?

How much did you spend on a house?

Hypothetically speaking, if I spent $135k on my house and it’s paid off and now valued at $420k or so, do you think we’re in a different financial position and I might be able to put more money into a car if I chose to than someone who just bought in Toronto?

You can do whatever you want.  If you have cash and want to buy a new car you should do just that.

I spent $7K on a seven year old van with 100K km on it, and I grit my teeth. 

I spent $800K+ on a bungalow because I couldn't bear to play casino with an unfair rental market that was costing me $3k per month for housing.  I was not enthusiastic about the housing market which is why I was out of it for decades.  I still think it's going to crash and I don't care.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 27, 2019, 04:05:18 pm
You can do whatever you want.  If you have cash and want to buy a new car you should do just that.

No one said anything about needing ypur permission.  I was just answering your question. 

Quote
I spent $7K on a seven year old van with 100K km on it, and I grit my teeth. 

Different prioties...   Probably cuz of:

Quote
I spent $800K+ on a bungalow because I couldn't bear to play casino with an unfair rental market that was costing me $3k per month for housing.  I was not enthusiastic about the housing market which is why I was out of it for decades.  I still think it's going to crash and I don't care.

Yes...   Different financial situations breed different spending priorities.   Which was the answer to your question.

You rented for decades despite being able to buy???     Ooops.  The impending doom of the housing market was not a great prediction.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 27, 2019, 06:05:46 pm
1. No one said anything about needing ypur permission.  I was just answering your question. 

2. You rented for decades despite being able to buy???     Ooops.  The impending doom of the housing market was not a great prediction.

1. This sounds like asking permission: "do you think I might be able to put more money into a car if I chose to "

2. The single most massive stupidity in my life.  Friends of mine bought downtown for $300K while I was saying "nope nope".  I am actually a **** moron - please note for any future rebukes.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 27, 2019, 07:44:42 pm
1. This sounds like asking permission: "do you think I might be able to put more money into a car if I chose to "


No.  It was a question of ability to do it, not whether you think someone should do it.

Quote
2. The single most massive stupidity in my life.  Friends of mine bought downtown for $300K while I was saying "nope nope".  I am actually a **** moron - please note for any future rebukes.

 :(

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 27, 2019, 09:29:49 pm

No.  It was a question of ability to do it, not whether you think someone should do it.

 :(

Why would you not be able to do that?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 27, 2019, 09:59:48 pm
And catering to only those people aren't going to do squat to fix the "climate crisis".

Hey that person choose Tesla over a Land Rover. Slow Clap.

Tesla definitely markets towards a certain niche.  They aren't going after the mom with 3 kids.  Early adopters always pay a premium for new tech.

When/if the technology hits critical mass all of the car manufacturers will have EV models plus the price will go down.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on August 27, 2019, 10:07:38 pm
Seeing a lot of Tesla’s around here these days. Barely pay attention to them now.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 27, 2019, 10:11:48 pm
I spent $800K+ on a bungalow because I couldn't bear to play casino with an unfair rental market that was costing me $3k per month for housing.  I was not enthusiastic about the housing market which is why I was out of it for decades.  I still think it's going to crash and I don't care.

Rent is literally throwing your money away.

Even if there's a market correction in Toronto, it's the safest housing market in the country and a future-proof investment.  Something like 70% of immigrants go to Toronto, so demand will always be there for many decades to come & they'll never be able to build houses fast enough to keep up (condos, well who knows, still doubtful).

Worst case is a correction, your house goes down in value, maybe you could renegotiate your mortgage for less, then value goes back up eventually.  Market has cooled a bit so I think you're fine, and no correction is worth throwing away 36k a year on rent.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2019, 10:29:36 pm
Rent is literally throwing your money away.

Even if there's a market correction in Toronto, it's the safest housing market in the country and a future-proof investment.  Something like 70% of immigrants go to Toronto, so demand will always be there for many decades to come & they'll never be able to build houses fast enough to keep up (condos, well who knows, still doubtful).

Worst case is a correction, your house goes down in value, maybe you could renegotiate your mortgage for less, then value goes back up eventually.  Market has cooled a bit so I think you're fine, and no correction is worth throwing away 36k a year on rent.

And all that has what to do with climate change?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 27, 2019, 10:42:51 pm
And all that has what to do with climate change?

Easing MH's psychological pain over housing will reduce GHG emissions due to reduction in nervous farting.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 27, 2019, 10:59:04 pm
Easing MH's psychological pain over housing will reduce GHG emissions due to reduction in nervous farting.

Telling him he bought high and there may be a market correction probably hasn’t eased $hit. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 28, 2019, 05:44:05 am
Rent is literally throwing your money away.

Even if there's a market correction in Toronto, it's the safest housing market in the country and a future-proof investment.  Something like 70% of immigrants go to Toronto, so demand will always be there for many decades to come & they'll never be able to build houses fast enough to keep up (condos, well who knows, still doubtful).

Well... maybe.  But rents are taking a historically massive chunk of income and you have to have a household income of 4X the average to buy a small house.  It doesn't seem sustainable.

A small tick, like a government drastically reducing immigration or airbNb regulations coming in or Chinese govt changing policy on foreign investment...

Now - given that I have shown myself to have zero vision in these things anyway - why do you think it's safe beyond the immigration thing ?


Quote
Worst case is a correction, your house goes down in value, maybe you could renegotiate your mortgage for less, then value goes back up eventually.  Market has cooled a bit so I think you're fine, and no correction is worth throwing away 36k a year on rent.

Well at $36k per year you are right....
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 28, 2019, 05:44:22 am
also CLIMATE CHANGE (thread drift)
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: cybercoma on August 28, 2019, 07:49:47 am
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE PAYING$40k for a NEW CAR?!?
People who don't live in major cities where public transportation can quickly and efficiently get them anywhere they need to go.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 28, 2019, 08:04:57 am
Why wouldn't you get one a few years older and save depreciation?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Bubbermiley on August 28, 2019, 08:39:22 am
It's not easy finding a good used car. They've often got a lot of miles on them already, which is usually why they're being sold. If something is low mileage and in good condition, it's very desirable so there isn't so much depreciation.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 28, 2019, 10:08:45 am
Tesla definitely markets towards a certain niche.  They aren't going after the mom with 3 kids.  Early adopters always pay a premium for new tech.

When/if the technology hits critical mass all of the car manufacturers will have EV models plus the price will go down.

The point I was trying to make is that EVs and PHEVs aren't being subject to the same type of financing rates as conventional cars. Dealers aren't being giving sweeteners to sell them. It's a case of, either you can afford it or not.

Not exactly the philosophy one should take if driving ICE cars are killing the planet.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: cybercoma on August 29, 2019, 07:41:39 am
Why wouldn't you get one a few years older and save depreciation?
Think about it. Who sells a car that's a few years old? They usually have some kind of problem or have a lot of mileage on them. My wife puts nearly 50000 kms on her car every year for work. She can't get into a used vehicle because she would be flipping them over too frequently. And even though sometimes they come with a warranty, those warranties are far shorter and cover fewer things than a new car warranty. In her case, it makes more sense economically to buy a new vehicle every 6-8 years than buying a used one every 2 or 3.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 29, 2019, 08:02:33 am
Think about it. Who sells a car that's a few years old? They usually have some kind of problem or have a lot of mileage on them. My wife puts nearly 50000 kms on her car every year for work. She can't get into a used vehicle because she would be flipping them over too frequently. And even though sometimes they come with a warranty, those warranties are far shorter and cover fewer things than a new car warranty. In her case, it makes more sense economically to buy a new vehicle every 6-8 years than buying a used one every 2 or 3.

A lot of people Lease cars. Essentially they're just renting those cars for four years and that comes with a mileage limit. So a smart consumer can easily find four-year-old cars with 60-80ks for half price of a new car.

The other avenue, which is less advisable, is buying a former rental. These cars are less than two years old but have already racked up sizeable mileage for the age. But that's a way to get a new-ish car for lower price.

None of this applies for EVs and PHEVs because they're too new to the market. But you can certainly get a good used Conventional Hybrid on the used car market. 

Oh and used car warranties are absolute scams.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on August 29, 2019, 10:48:36 am
The Misogyny of Climate Deniers
https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.”
...
“There is a package of values and behaviors connected to a form of masculinity that I call ‘industrial breadwinner masculinity.’ They see the world as separated between humans and nature. They believe humans are obliged to use nature and its resources to make products out of them. And they have a risk perception that nature will tolerate all types of waste. It’s a risk perception that doesn’t think of nature as vulnerable and as something that is possible to be destroyed. For them, economic growth is more important than the environment” Hultman told Deutsche Welle last year.

The corollary to this is that climate science, for skeptics, becomes feminized—or viewed as “oppositional to assumed entitlements of masculine primacy,” Hultman and fellow researcher Paul Pulé wrote in another paper.


This is certainly consistent with what I've observed among the extreme far-right: They are (none too bright) racist, misogynist homophobes and climate-change deniers, all one package ... because it is the package that defends

"a form of masculinity that I call ‘industrial breadwinner masculinity.’ ".

However, the unfortunate people of the extreme far-right who are visible and vocal in public and online generally don't appear to be very successful in the "breadwinner" category ... but have been convinced that their failure to succeed is the fault of ... women, immigrants and climate-change 'propaganda'.

It would be funny ... if they weren't becoming bolder, more militant and more threatening.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 29, 2019, 11:02:43 am
You know - something can be true, important and even relevant but ... not worth saying to a general public ?

I feel like the average person will not be able to process the message here, Granny.  It's very high-level. 

Kind of like how the Democrats put a certain type of argument at the forefront - it may be moral to do so but it might not be effective.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 29, 2019, 12:07:12 pm
A lot of people Lease cars. Essentially they're just renting those cars for four years and that comes with a mileage limit. So a smart consumer can easily find four-year-old cars with 60-80ks for half price of a new car.

Yes, just about every dealer has 3 or 4 year old cars on the lot (former leases) with less than 60-70k on them.  I always buy cars this way, last one i bought had 35k on it, still had the new car smell and was in immaculate condition.  First few years is when cars depreciate the most.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on August 29, 2019, 12:32:20 pm
Yes, just about every dealer has 3 or 4 year old cars on the lot (former leases) with less than 60-70k on them.  I always buy cars this way, last one i bought had 35k on it, still had the new car smell and was in immaculate condition.  First few years is when cars depreciate the most.

I just bought my newest vehicle - 7 years and 100,000 kilometers.  I think it should last 5-10 years - it was $7K which means about $60-$100 per month.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 29, 2019, 12:48:48 pm
I just bought my newest vehicle - 7 years and 100,000 kilometers.  I think it should last 5-10 years - it was $7K which means about $60-$100 per month.

You financed a $7k car? I hope you didn't do it through the dealer.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 29, 2019, 12:57:53 pm
Another obstacle.

The Ontario Green plate that allows you to use HOV lanes. It's a free incentive that makes conventional hybrids less appealing.

You call up, say Honda, and say I want to test drive a PHEV Honda Insight. Sales Guy will be like, it's special order. But, but I need to drive it first to buy it.

Car companies. . . MAKE THESE EFFING CARS!!!!! Don't treat them like they're some rare commodity that us normo's that can't afford to buy a Tesla, sight on scene, have to fight over.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 29, 2019, 01:15:35 pm
Why haven't hybrids caught on more?

What's the cost of a hybrid vs a regular car + 10 years of filling a gas tank.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on August 29, 2019, 03:01:22 pm
Why haven't hybrids caught on more?

What's the cost of a hybrid vs a regular car + 10 years of filling a gas tank.

Well it's not even Hybrids anymore. You can get those now for the price of a normal mid-sized car.

What people want are EVs. The price of those are still somewhat high.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 29, 2019, 05:36:35 pm
I've just calculated that if I drive my vehicle for 250,000km over its life-span I will spend about $28,000 on gas..  I don't even have a large vehicle.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 29, 2019, 05:38:56 pm
Well it's not even Hybrids anymore. You can get those now for the price of a normal mid-sized car.

What people want are EVs. The price of those are still somewhat high.

It's just odd that people either want pure gas vehicles or EVs.  Most people I know are intrigued by EVs but don't actually want one...yet.

Hybrids seem like a great compromise.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on August 29, 2019, 06:34:30 pm
Hybrids seem like a great compromise.

Hybrids do cut your petroleum consumption, but EVs eliminate it. Of course if your local power is generated by natural gas or coal then the EV will still contribute to global warming, and the fuel cost may be higher than my estimates below. There are also plug in hybrids like the Chevrolet Volt. It is hard to compare costs because there are way too many variables depending on where you live, and how you drive. My guess at fuel costs for a similar vehicle driven under the same conditions is:

Gas - $100
Diesel - $80
Hybrid - $75
Plug in hybrid - $40
EV - $25
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 29, 2019, 08:39:21 pm
I drive in the woods and not much in the city.  EV will be a tough go when you need to do 80km of logging road each way, towing a trailer. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on August 30, 2019, 01:11:12 pm
I drive in the woods and not much in the city.  EV will be a tough go when you need to do 80km of logging road each way, towing a trailer.

Tesla model X. 2" towing receiver, 7-pin connector, 5000lb rating. Range is over 500km, but yes that will be cut back when towing and on logging roads. That still however gives you lots headroom as you are only looking for under 200. Ground clearance may be an issue. Depending on how you set the suspension, and wheel size it can be anywhere between 5.3" to 8". Not sure what you mean by "logging road", that is not very descriptive and I have see all kinds including all kinds.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 30, 2019, 01:50:01 pm
Tesla model X. 2" towing receiver, 7-pin connector, 5000lb rating. Range is over 500km, but yes that will be cut back when towing and on logging roads. That still however gives you lots headroom as you are only looking for under 200. Ground clearance may be an issue. Depending on how you set the suspension, and wheel size it can be anywhere between 5.3" to 8". Not sure what you mean by "logging road", that is not very descriptive and I have see all kinds including all kinds.

 ::)
MSRP. $115,000

Not much of a 4x4 for the logging roads i’m talking about.   

We’re definitely not talking apples to apples. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on August 30, 2019, 02:35:09 pm
Not much of a 4x4 for the logging roads i’m talking about.   

We’re definitely not talking apples to apples.

Then look at Rivian. They will outclass most 4x4's on the market, 8"-14" adjustable clearance, go places you would need a snorkel for ICE vehicles, and tow up to 11,000 lbs to boot. So far they are still in the prototype phase, but remember that Ford invested heavily in them recently. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford takes their chassis which is their real value add, and puts a F-150 and/or Expedition body on top.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 03, 2019, 01:57:12 pm
EVs are not yet attainable for most consumers.

Thinking most can afford a $70,000 truck that only goes 400 kms on a charge is laughable.

Hybrids can be, but they're still reliant on the availability of Gas Stations everywhere. They're useful for commuters. But as governments keep artificially moving the price of gas up, they'll even be less appealing unless car companies make buying these cars easier to do.

Incentives, Good Interest Rates and Plentiful Stock.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 03, 2019, 01:58:50 pm
Just stumbled upon this Ted Talk on Youtube. (Coles Notes version, Renewables have an extraordinary environmental cost where as fuel sources like nuclear actually produce way more power and use far less space)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w

Why aren't we investing more in Nuclear? It seems that even if we could create a base load with renewables, the amount of actually material and space required would defeat the purpose.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on September 03, 2019, 04:46:24 pm
Thinking most can afford a $70,000 truck that only goes 400 kms on a charge is laughable.

Average price for a F-150 is about $50k. The 400kms on a charge is great for a truck. Most people don't drive a truck cross country, they stay close to home. This way they never, repeat never, have to visit the damn gas station ever or worry about running out of gas because they have a full charge every morning and can deal with their day without concern. The anxiety of running out of fuel is gone, that is a legacy of the gas guzzlers.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on September 03, 2019, 04:56:31 pm
Just stumbled upon this Ted Talk on Youtube. (Coles Notes version, Renewables have an extraordinary environmental cost where as fuel sources like nuclear actually produce way more power and use far less space)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w

Why aren't we investing more in Nuclear? It seems that even if we could create a base load with renewables, the amount of actually material and space required would defeat the purpose.

They never include consideration of the human and environmental destruction from mining uranium.
Nobody wants a new reactor built near them.
It isn't a popular alternative with Canadians, so it isn't pursued.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 04, 2019, 08:09:00 am
They never include consideration of the human and environmental destruction from mining uranium.
Nobody wants a new reactor built near them.
It isn't a popular alternative with Canadians, so it isn't pursued.

Ontario is still mostly powered by nuclear.

How about the mining of all the materials to creates these acres of batteries?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 04, 2019, 08:10:02 am
Average price for a F-150 is about $50k. The 400kms on a charge is great for a truck. Most people don't drive a truck cross country, they stay close to home. This way they never, repeat never, have to visit the damn gas station ever or worry about running out of gas because they have a full charge every morning and can deal with their day without concern. The anxiety of running out of fuel is gone, that is a legacy of the gas guzzlers.

Generally, people who buy trucks do it for work purposes, meaning the price is just the cost of doing business.

For EVs and Hybrids to make a difference, they need to be priced for people commuting to work.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on September 04, 2019, 04:43:42 pm
Ontario is still mostly powered by nuclear.

True, about 60%. Note however the Pickering is shutting down 2 reactors in 2022, and the rest in 2024. That represents about 25% of the operational nuclear power in Ontario. The other 2 nuclear stations are planned for closure between 25-40 years in the future.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on September 05, 2019, 07:12:15 am
True, about 60%. Note however the Pickering is shutting down 2 reactors in 2022, and the rest in 2024. That represents about 25% of the operational nuclear power in Ontario. The other 2 nuclear stations are planned for closure between 25-40 years in the future.

Good to know. There is a geological fault line extending from the St Lawrence through Southern Ontario, surrounded by 7 nuclear reactors.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 05, 2019, 08:40:49 am
Soooo then in 40 years what will replace Nuclear? LNC? Because it seems Renewables are a long way from being able to carry a base load and even if they could, the land and resources required is staggering.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on September 20, 2019, 04:18:09 pm
Thinking most can afford a $70,000 truck that only goes 400 kms on a charge is laughable.

Cost of ownership is a different story. As I said previously, this makes a lot of sense for a truck as they stay close to home and would never have to visit a gas station because they are always charged enough for their daily work. It seems Jeff Bezos agrees with me, and he has put his money where it counts. He has ordered a few of these...

... 100,000 to be exact.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on September 21, 2019, 02:52:19 pm
Soooo then in 40 years what will replace Nuclear? LNC? Because it seems Renewables are a long way from being able to carry a base load and even if they could, the land and resources required is staggering.

Human resourcefulness and innovation is unlimited, and can't be predicted. Rest assured, humans will be inventing what we need for the future.
We have roadblocks to human innovation, well funded and well connected lobbyists, propagandists, and saboteurs for the fossil fuel industry, squashing renewable energy as much as they can.

If we continue and increase our efforts to squash the fossil fuel industry instead, entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors and investors will quickly find ways to promote and profit from renewables.

What's that principle? ... 'An object in motion will remain on it's course until acted upon by another force.'

We have to apply 'the force' to change the direction, and human ingenuity will provide the methods.


Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: queenmandy85 on September 21, 2019, 05:03:33 pm
They never include consideration of the human and environmental destruction from mining uranium.
Nobody wants a new reactor built near them.
It isn't a popular alternative with Canadians, so it isn't pursued.

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on September 21, 2019, 05:20:00 pm
More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.

I agree, and of course the Fukushima accident helped cast a shadow over the system which is misguided. A nuclear plant built on a fault line, next to an ocean, with the backup generators in the basement. Who the hell designed that? I think we can do a lot better now having learned from such events and carry on and clean a lot of that coal/diesel smoke out of the air which kills a hell of a lot more than nuclear plants have.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: queenmandy85 on September 22, 2019, 08:56:33 am
Only one person died from the Fukishima event and he died of a heart attack. Yes, the placing of the plant was bad.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on September 22, 2019, 09:37:00 am
Tesla model X. 2" towing receiver, 7-pin connector, 5000lb rating. Range is over 500km, but yes that will be cut back when towing and on logging roads. That still however gives you lots headroom as you are only looking for under 200. Ground clearance may be an issue. Depending on how you set the suspension, and wheel size it can be anywhere between 5.3" to 8". Not sure what you mean by "logging road", that is not very descriptive and I have see all kinds including all kinds.

The Model X and it’s AWD system is designed for superior on road performance like most AWD vehicles, it is as likely to be used off road as your average Mercedes SUV. Towing any serious load will cut its range in half and what happens when you get out in the bush, you won’t find charging stations and you can’t throw a few jerry cans of diesel or gas in the back to get you home. Ev’s won’t be suitable for all uses.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on September 22, 2019, 10:30:44 am
More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.
The danger of nuclear accidents is one issue that has affected public support for nuclear power.

But I referred to the health and environmental effects of uranium mining. (Upstream)
And of course, downstream, the dangers and damage of 'disposing of' radioactive waste.

All enter into consideration, and all are factors in minimal support for nuclear power.
.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: queenmandy85 on September 22, 2019, 08:43:04 pm
Uranium is just a temporary bridge to using thorium in liquid thorium reactors. The Candu can already use thorium but the liquid thorium reactor is even safer and more efficient.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on September 22, 2019, 08:52:37 pm
Uranium is just a temporary bridge to using thorium in liquid thorium reactors. The Candu can already use thorium but the liquid thorium reactor is even safer and more efficient.

Why doesn't the Candu sell better ?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on September 22, 2019, 10:17:56 pm
More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.

Nobody wants it mined, used or buried as  radioactive waste.
Upstream downstream it's all vile.
Mother Earth filters toxins in her organs, like us.
Leave it in the earth.

Our Treaties are only valid "to a plough's depth", for
"As Long as The Sun Shines, The Grass Grows and The River Flows".
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on September 22, 2019, 10:51:34 pm
Wind, wave, and sun are all welcome sources of power IMO. However they are not dependable or available enough for all. Advancements in nuclear power generation make it a very good back up when the sun sets or the wind dies. Build them at proper locations and put the waste back in the earth where it came from, such as the Canadian Shield.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on September 23, 2019, 12:31:59 am
Renewables won’t supply all our needs, choices will have to be made.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on September 23, 2019, 12:41:24 am
Renewables won’t supply all our needs, choices will have to be made.

Quite true, and we all know there is that last barrel of oil down there somewhere and we need to make those choices before that day comes.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on September 23, 2019, 12:49:10 pm
Why doesn't the Candu sell better ?

It requires heavy water which is expensive. There are also many smaller pressurized water reactors giving wider applicability. CANDU reactors however are fairly flexible, including ability to use thorium and spent fuel from other reactors as fuel.

I believe what queenmandy meant by "liquid thorium" reactors was a completely different technology, using molten salt as a moderator. There are inherent safety factors of that design, but it has yet to be proven in a practical application. The only molten salt reactor ran for a few years in the 1960's and was shutdown. While there is a lot of theoretical promise to the design, that experimental reactor was not without problems including a large radioactive waste created.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on September 23, 2019, 12:54:27 pm
Renewables won’t supply all our needs, choices will have to be made.

Black and white thinking isn't helpful. It assumes we have no control, we can't change the status quo, and encourages apathy.
Instead, I suggest:
'Renewables won’t supply all our needs YET. PROGRESS will have to be made QUICKLY.'

Then it's a call to action, not apathy.

The fossil fuel and war industries have been holding us hostage for over a hundred years, creating apathy and inaction in the public by buying up and squashing every invention that could have alleviated GHG emissions.

No more of that predatory and self-destructive nonsense. We can't wait apathetically for the corporate world to take the lead. We're pushing them ... hard.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-industry-continues-to-squash-renewable-energy-age-1881784883.html
To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 23, 2019, 12:56:36 pm
No more of that predatory and self-destructive nonsense. We can't wait apathetically for the corporate world to take the lead. We're pushing them ... hard.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-industry-continues-to-squash-renewable-energy-age-1881784883.html
To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.

The corporate world knows. That's why Trump's efforts to rollback climate change initiatives haven't really worked. People ultimately want to use less and businesses market to that.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on September 23, 2019, 01:42:16 pm
Black and white thinking isn't helpful. It assumes we have no control, we can't change the status quo, and encourages apathy.
Instead, I suggest:
'Renewables won’t supply all our needs YET. PROGRESS will have to be made QUICKLY.'

Then it's a call to action, not apathy.

The fossil fuel and war industries have been holding us hostage for over a hundred years, creating apathy and inaction in the public by buying up and squashing every invention that could have alleviated GHG emissions.

No more of that predatory and self-destructive nonsense. We can't wait apathetically for the corporate world to take the lead. We're pushing them ... hard.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-industry-continues-to-squash-renewable-energy-age-1881784883.html
To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.
It isn’t black and white thinking, it is reality. Electricity isn’t suited for everything and renewables can’t supply all our electrical needs. Things like nuclear will have to be considered if you are serious about drastically reducing C02  emissions. China is by far the largest producer of renewable electricity from wind and solar yet 60% of their power comes from fossil fuels and they still produce a quarter of the world’s CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on September 24, 2019, 02:51:00 pm
Soooo then in 40 years what will replace Nuclear? LNC? Because it seems Renewables are a long way from being able to carry a base load and even if they could, the land and resources required is staggering.
Nothing needs to 'replace' nuclear (although we may improve reactor technology..)

Long term, we may start to use Nuclear fusion (which has a lot of technical problems to overcome but has a lot of upside.)

Biofuels may take a bigger role, since at least some of that could be done using water rather than land.


Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on September 24, 2019, 03:00:30 pm
Quote
True, about 60%. Note however the Pickering is shutting down 2 reactors in 2022, and the rest in 2024. That represents about 25% of the operational nuclear power in Ontario. The other 2 nuclear stations are planned for closure between 25-40 years in the future.
Good to know. There is a geological fault line extending from the St Lawrence through Southern Ontario, surrounded by 7 nuclear reactors.
Uhh... no it isn't. If you truly want to stop climate change, you should be hoping the reactors run as long as possible, or are replaced with new reactors in the near future.

Ontario shares a power grid with large sections of the united states. If we aren't generating electricity via nuclear, we may end up importing electricity from the U.S., and they use a lot more fossil fuels for their power generation. Result: More global warming.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 26, 2019, 07:24:50 pm
Thinking most can afford a $70,000 truck that only goes 400 kms on a charge is laughable.

Tesla announced its pickup last week. Starting price is $39,900 for 250+ mile & 7500lb towing - note that 400km is 249 miles. Delivery is still 2 years out, but you can order now if you want to lock in the price and get in the queue. $49,900 for 300+ mile & 10,000lb towing, and $69,900 for 500+ mile and 14,000lb towing. All can carry 3500lbs payload. The three motor version (the expensive one) does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds - not that you would need that in a pickup, very few cars come anywhere close

It looks like it will be a great off-road vehicle. Both approach (35°) and departure (28°) angles are excellent for a pickup. It has air bag suspension that can rise to give a 16" ground clearance, way above any factory pickup. I expect one of the advantages of an EV is also no driveshaft, differential, or exhaust system hanging down.

The body styling is quite unique. Perhaps a bit off putting to begin with because it is quite different from the status quo, but it quickly grows on you when you realize the advantages. The body is also made of stainless steel, very impact resistant and great on the job site.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 26, 2019, 07:28:44 pm
The Tesla pickup (?) is hideous and impractical. 

(https://the-drive-2.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1574398557482-teslatruck8.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4.1&s=5dc6d584c7c52af67dee28df4b4680fe)
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 26, 2019, 07:49:24 pm
Ford is coming out with an electric F150, probably by 2021. I bet it will look like a truck.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 26, 2019, 07:49:58 pm
The Tesla pickup (?) is hideous and impractical. 

Why?

Great visibility from inside.

The air suspension allows you to tilt front up, and back down to make it easier to load; your picture demonstrates there is a ramp built into the tailgate. Great for carrying ATV's, motorbikes, etc. There is also a charging port in the bed to recharge your Tesla ATV (what is shown, but no details were given). If I remember correctly it can provide both 110V and 220V power for whatever you need so you can charge you generic e-bikes as well.

Yes, it take some getting used to because it is a dramatic change from the status quo. Do you want legacy, or aerodynamic. Those extended sides on the bed improve efficiency as well, but yes they may get in the way depending on how you want to load it. There is a cover for the bed that in your picture is rolled up out of the way.

Ford is coming out with an electric F150, probably by 2021. I bet it will look like a truck.

Yes, change is hard for some.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 26, 2019, 08:18:50 pm
Why?

Great visibility from inside.

The air suspension allows you to tilt front up, and back down to make it easier to load; your picture demonstrates there is a ramp built into the tailgate. Great for carrying ATV's, motorbikes, etc. There is also a charging port in the bed to recharge your Tesla ATV (what is shown, but no details were given). If I remember correctly it can provide both 110V and 220V power for whatever you need so you can charge you generic e-bikes as well.

Yes, it take some getting used to because it is a dramatic change from the status quo. Do you want legacy, or aerodynamic. Those extended sides on the bed improve efficiency as well, but yes they may get in the way depending on how you want to load it. There is a cover for the bed that in your picture is rolled up out of the way.

Yes, change is hard for some.

It has some neat ideas and yes aerodynamics are more important for EV's. It looks like rear seat headroom will be an issue with this thing. Truck stying may change but their general shape looks like it does for a reason, they are practical vehicles. I can see this thing going over great with suburban yuppies but not people who use trucks for work and recreation. They need things like flat bed rails so they can use a canopy, camper or racks to carry more than one snow machine or motorcycle. The single quad may look catchy in the back of that thing but its shape restricts its utility.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 26, 2019, 08:52:51 pm
I just can't see myself putting a half yard of bark mulch, sand or gravel in the back of that thing.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on November 27, 2019, 01:26:58 pm
Tesla announced its pickup last week. The body is also made of stainless steel, very impact resistant and great on the job site.
Supposedly the windows are impact resistant. Unless you are demonstrating it in front of an audience.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/cars/elon-musk-tesla-cybertruck-window-glass-broke/index.html
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on November 27, 2019, 01:57:29 pm
The Tesla pickup (?) is hideous
Why? What makes any vehicle "hideous"?

By its nature, cars are unnatural things. We may look at a ferrari and say "that is a beautiful vehicle", but what actually makes it beautiful? And by comparison, what makes people see something like a Pontiac Aztec or a Nissan Cube as 'ugly' (as they are often characterized as)?

(Note: I do recognize that some people might decide they don't like its appearance, but again, that's just a personal preference thing, rather than some objective measure of 'hideous'.)
Quote
and impractical.
Impractical how?

The range appears to be not bad. (Yes, long distances can be problematic without knowing where proper charging stations are, but not everyone uses their vehicles on long road trips.)

?Impact pointed out the towing capacity is 10,000-14,000 pounds. Googling some of the specs for the F150, its towing capacity seems to be between 5000 and 13000 pounds (depending on the engine), so it appears to be roughly comparable to some of the more well known pickup trucks. The payload capacity also seems to be roughly equivalent to the F150 too.

Now the only other thing I can think of that might be an issue is the volume of the truck bed. (I would actually have to see the 2 vehicles side-by-side to determine whether it is an issue or not.)

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 27, 2019, 02:25:42 pm
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are several designs that I now like that had to grow on me.
The size of the bed may be competitive but its usability is nowhere as flexible as a conventional bed.

Electric motors are the king of torque and can pull almost anything, that’s why diesel electric is the choice of ships, rail and other heavy duty applications. Towing will also be a range killer and batteries just don’t contain enough energy. A car that gets 30 mpg can go as far on 70 lbs of gas as a Tesla S with a 1200 lb battery.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on November 27, 2019, 02:28:28 pm
Ohhh... THAT'S what is going on in this thread  :D :D :D

Silly car.... backend developer does frontend...
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on November 27, 2019, 02:43:20 pm
https://fossbytes.com/tesla-cybertruck-killer-neuron-ev-electric-car-pickup-truck-camper/
"It’s because the Neuron EV T-ONE electric pickup truck is a modular vehicle, meaning it can be transformed into a tractor, a camper van, a dump truck and anything else that you can imagine."

Competition for Tesla?
I thought maybe this was a transformer truck, but it seems you can order it with different functions.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 27, 2019, 07:05:28 pm
The Tesla pickup (?) is hideous and impractical. 

(https://the-drive-2.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1574398557482-teslatruck8.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4.1&s=5dc6d584c7c52af67dee28df4b4680fe)

While i'm rooting for EV technology in general, Tesla is a weird company that makes its cars to be some kind of gimmicky futuristic thingy to make it seem "cool" and "hip" and "future-forward" in every way besides the EV tech....these cars are and more like a toy for early adopters who always buy tech gadgets when they come out.  Like the Delorean-style doors on some of the cars and the tablets-as-dashboard in the middle of the car look cool but are impracticable.  Same with this truck that looks like a look Mars rover vehicle but has no storage space on the bed.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 27, 2019, 07:24:20 pm
It looks like rear seat headroom will be an issue with this thing.

The few reviews I have seen from people who have actually had a ride in it, including in the rear seat, say it is roomy. Also note that it can seat 6 passengers if you fold down the middle seat in the front.

I just can't see myself putting a half yard of bark mulch, sand or gravel in the back of that thing.

I expect the stainless steel body will stand up far better than any other truck on the road, and then you could always put in a bed liner if you really wanted to but far less need.

Now the only other thing I can think of that might be an issue is the volume of the truck bed. (I would actually have to see the 2 vehicles side-by-side to determine whether it is an issue or not.)

It is a 6½' bed. They never mentioned if they would make an 8' bed, but most of the trucks sold today are 6½' anyway. There are also a few 5½' ones out there but not that many.

If you want to put in a generic camper however that would be a problem. There will however be a tent camper option.

(https://www.youredm.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/tesla-camper-cybertruck.jpg)

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 27, 2019, 07:52:19 pm
You will be able to use very little with this truck that is generic in any way, it will  all have to be specific to this truck. I see Tesla in a similar way to Apple. Their devoted followers will buy and pay anything to have the latest and greatest and they limit their compatibility with after market products. Contractors and people who need work trucks won't even look at this thing but they are obviously not a target market.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 27, 2019, 07:54:10 pm
You will be able to use very little with this truck that is generic in any way, it will  all have to be specific to this truck.

You are right, I must by Tesla tools to carry around in the back for my contracting business. I must go to the Tesla nursery to buy mulch. I must buy Tesla firewood.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 27, 2019, 07:57:15 pm
You are right, I must by Tesla tools to carry around in the back for my contracting business. I must go to the Tesla nursery to buy mulch. I must buy Tesla firewood.

That's not what I am talking about, almost nothing generic is compatible with those bed rails.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on November 28, 2019, 12:48:41 pm
That's not what I am talking about, almost nothing generic is compatible with those bed rails.
Not sure what exactly your point is.

Even if much of the Tesla pickup is non-standard, many of the people using the truck probably wouldn't care.... stuff gets stuck in the back of the truck in an almost random/3-d Tetris way. They don't need to worry about specific bed rails.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 28, 2019, 12:58:03 pm
Not sure what exactly your point is.

Even if much of the Tesla pickup is non-standard, many of the people using the truck probably wouldn't care.... stuff gets stuck in the back of the truck in an almost random/3-d Tetris way. They don't need to worry about specific bed rails.

I know many people won't care, they will probably sell like hotcakes, just not many to people who have real needs for a truck. I was responding to a post that claimed some people just don't like change when I said the F150 EV will look like a regular truck. It isn't about change, many things look the way they do for a reason.

There is room for real aerodynamic improvements in existing trucks so the front end of the Tesla doesn't really bother me, just the back.

If you are towing something, your aerodynamics can be no better than what you are towing. Probably worse.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 28, 2019, 01:01:29 pm
Tesla isn't trying to make functional designs, it's trying to make cool looking designs to be hip so all the cool kids buy their vehicles.  They want to be Apple or Google rather than Ford or Honda.  They seem like a tech company as much as a car company. At least they know their demographic base.

As long as it's functional (which it doesn't seem to be often) i have no problem bringing different ideas to the marketplace.  We have enough cars on the road that like look like a Toyota Corrola.

People who buy fitbits and smartwatches and 4k tv's before there was any 4k content will want to buy these vehicles.  Musk sounds like one of these people.  People like wasting money on fun gimmicky gizmos.  Probably a good business strategy.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 28, 2019, 01:08:42 pm
I agree to a point. When it comes to EV design, Tesla is very functional and they are still ahead of everyone else. If I am critical of their truck it is because of its functionality as a truck, not an EV.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 28, 2019, 01:35:00 pm
I agree to a point. When it comes to EV design, Tesla is very functional and they are still ahead of everyone else. If I am critical of their truck it is because of its functionality as a truck, not an EV.

I only care about the EV tech mostly.  Tesla also cares about marketing and image, it is a business after all, and Musk's little play toy venture.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 28, 2019, 01:43:50 pm
I only care about the EV tech mostly.  Tesla also cares about marketing and image, it is a business after all, and Musk's little play toy venture.

Sure, marketing and image is important if you are trying to sell something. Musk has a big ego but he is also a visionary. Branson is similar in the way he promotes himself and his business.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 28, 2019, 02:48:04 pm
Tesla isn't trying to make functional designs, it's trying to make cool looking designs to be hip so all the cool kids buy their vehicles.

Let's see, a sloping rear with a retractable cover sounds like it would improve fuel efficiency greatly. A pickup is notoriously bad at aerodynamic efficiency; lots of flat backs (window, tailgate) create negative pressure and the open truck bed causes disruption in air flow. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Have you done aerodynamic modelling? Others who are more interested in science (https://interestingengineering.com/teslas-cybertruck-aerodynamics-do-flow-smoothly-as-per-a-cfd-analysis) than throwing stones have.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2019, 03:04:08 pm
Let's see, a sloping rear with a retractable cover sounds like it would improve fuel efficiency greatly. A pickup is notoriously bad at aerodynamic efficiency; lots of flat backs (window, tailgate) create negative pressure and the open truck bed causes disruption in air flow. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Have you done aerodynamic modelling? Others who are more interested in science (https://interestingengineering.com/teslas-cybertruck-aerodynamics-do-flow-smoothly-as-per-a-cfd-analysis) than throwing stones have.

I guess if NASA hires you to send space craft to the ISS, and you are the first to be able to recover a spacecraft from orbit, you may have some idea of aerodynamics and how to build a car.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 28, 2019, 05:26:58 pm
I guess if NASA hires you to send space craft to the ISS, and you are the first to be able to recover a spacecraft from orbit, you may have some idea of aerodynamics and how to build a car.

Wilber didn't say it wouldn't have good aerodynamics.   He is looking at it and questioning its functionality. 

Also, if you're towing a trailer that has a flat front, of course it will severely affect the aerodynamic efficiency.   ::)

(https://a2btrailers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3021-c5-cargo-trailers-variant-large-tradie-trailer.jpg)
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2019, 05:30:23 pm
Wilber didn't say it wouldn't have good aerodynamics.   He is looking at it and questioning its functionality. 

Also, if you're towing a trailer that has a flat front, of course it will severely affect the aerodynamic efficiency.   ::)

(https://a2btrailers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3021-c5-cargo-trailers-variant-large-tradie-trailer.jpg)

My comment wasn't directed at Wilber.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 28, 2019, 05:41:31 pm
My comment wasn't directed at Wilber.

And mine should have quoted Impact, not you. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 28, 2019, 06:10:49 pm
Let's see, a sloping rear with a retractable cover sounds like it would improve fuel efficiency greatly. A pickup is notoriously bad at aerodynamic efficiency; lots of flat backs (window, tailgate) create negative pressure and the open truck bed causes disruption in air flow. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Have you done aerodynamic modelling? Others who are more interested in science (https://interestingengineering.com/teslas-cybertruck-aerodynamics-do-flow-smoothly-as-per-a-cfd-analysis) than throwing stones have.

It doesn't have a cargo capacity to hold very much.  Nobody will buy a truck with a super small cargo bed unless they just want to look cool and hip, regardless of fuel efficiency.  These look like sad tech demo prototypes from 1984 to me.

Also i do have a giant aerodynamic modelling chamber in the my backyard, ill invite yuz all over for beers and wind tests.  :P
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 28, 2019, 06:27:58 pm
Maybe it was designed by Adrian Newey, they say he can see air.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on November 28, 2019, 07:53:28 pm
It doesn't have a cargo capacity to hold very much.  Nobody will buy a truck with a super small cargo bed unless they just want to look cool and hip, regardless of fuel efficiency.
Doing some googling:

The length of the cargo bed in the Tesla is around 6.5 feet. Depending on the model, the length of the pickup bed on the F150 is between 5.5 feet and 8 feet. The cargo bed on the Dodge Ram is between 5.5 and 6.5 feet. So, the Tesla seems like the Tesla matches pretty well with other pickup trucks. (And the weight it can carry is pretty comparable too.)

I thought the Tesla had a small bed too, but I think its just the way the cab sort of blends into the back of the truck that makes it look like it has a lower capacity than it actually does.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a29891717/tesla-cybertruck-facts/
https://www.oldsaybrookcdj.com/ram-1500-truck-bed-sizes-and-cabin-dimensions/
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 29, 2019, 01:37:46 pm
It doesn't have a cargo capacity to hold very much.  Nobody will buy a truck with a super small cargo bed unless they just want to look cool and hip, regardless of fuel efficiency.

Where do you get that idea. The vast majority of pickup trucks have 6½ beds, the exact same as the Tesla. Some are smaller, and some are larger, but today most people opt for a club or crew cab and a 6½ bed. It was not that case 40 years ago, but today people want to drag along the construction crew and/or family instead. I expect, just like every other manufacturer, if you want to carry long things like plywood or drywall, you drop the tailgate. The bigger issue is the load capacity, and here the Tesla is above most pickups. Yes there are things like the Ford Super Duty, and the Ram 3500's that can do more, but those are the exception.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 29, 2019, 01:45:05 pm
Where do you get that idea. The vast majority of pickup trucks have 6½ beds, the exact same as the Tesla. Some are smaller, and some are larger, but today most people opt for a club or crew cab and a 6½ bed.

I have no idea the dimensions, the bed just looks small from the photos.  This truck isn't geared toward blue collar workers or rural folk (who don't care about EVs and want gas and won't have the access to charging infrastructure as much anyways), they wouldn't touch this futuristic design with a pole, it's geared toward Marty McFly and urban hipsters, but i don't care i'd like to see it on the road because it looks cool and hilarious.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 29, 2019, 01:46:44 pm
Wilber didn't say it wouldn't have good aerodynamics.   He is looking at it and questioning its functionality. 

Also, if you're towing a trailer that has a flat front, of course it will severely affect the aerodynamic efficiency.   ::)

Yes, a tall trailer will drastically drop your aerodynamic efficiency. That is completely true for all vehicles. What percentage of your driving involves hauling such a trailer? Contractors do that a lot, but then they usually drive a very short distance at relatively low speed (aerodynamic efficiency is exponentially related to speed). If you are hauling around a super sized fifth wheel all the time or large horse trailer, then this is probably not the truck for you.

Functionality all depends on what you what to do with the thing. The market for pickups is huge, and only a small segment of that needs to carry 6000lbs, or tow a 25,000lb fifth wheel.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 29, 2019, 01:49:38 pm
This truck isn't geared toward blue collar workers or rural folk (who don't care about EVs and want gas and won't have the access to charging infrastructure as much anyways), they wouldn't touch this futuristic design with a pole, it's geared toward Marty McFly and urban hipsters, but i don't care i'd like to see it on the road because it looks cool and hilarious.

Blue collar workers and rural folk would be ideal users of this pickup. They care about cost, and here it has a huge advantage. They do the vast majority of their trips local, and have the charging infrastructure at their home where the truck is always filled up and they may never have to visit another gas station in their lives.

Your Marty McFly, urban hipsters comment is ignorant.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 29, 2019, 02:50:12 pm
Blue collar workers and rural folk would be ideal users of this pickup. They care about cost, and here it has a huge advantage. They do the vast majority of their trips local, and have the charging infrastructure at their home where the truck is always filled up and they may never have to visit another gas station in their lives.

Your Marty McFly, urban hipsters comment is ignorant.

Try finding a Tesla charge station in a rural area.  EVs are urban transport so far.  Until they start putting charging stations at boat ramps, popular quadding and snowmobile areas, EVs just won’t be practical. 

This won’t be pulling a travel trailer to northern BC anytime soon.  Not until there are 1000+ km ranges with a load.  You may be able to do it....   but it’s not practical. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 29, 2019, 03:04:00 pm
Try finding a Tesla charge station in a rural area.  EVs are urban transport so far.  Until they start putting charging stations at boat ramps, popular quadding and snowmobile areas, EVs just won’t be practical. 

The rural boat owner can drive to the lake and back several times on a single charge, while the urban one take 3 hours one-way.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on November 29, 2019, 03:08:12 pm
I have no idea the dimensions, the bed just looks small from the photos.
Again, the fact that it 'looks small' doesn't necessarily mean that it is small.

A combination of the design (the way the cab leads into the cargo area) and the overall size of the truck may make it look like it has limited capacity, but would (in theory) meet people's cargo capacity as well as most other trucks of the same category.
Quote
This truck isn't geared toward blue collar workers or rural folk (who don't care about EVs and want gas and won't have the access to charging infrastructure as much anyways), they wouldn't touch this futuristic design with a pole, it's geared toward Marty McFly and urban hipsters...
Now there might be some truth to this... that some people might be adverse to this vehicle because its design is too radical for them. (For example, I have a few older family members who had or have pickup trucks, and I suspect most of them would avoid it because, well, they are older and less interested in 'new' stuff.)

But that doesn't mean the truck wouldn't suit their needs, or doesn't have the capacity that they would want, just that their own preferences would keep them from buying one.

(Well, there is also the problems that Tesla has with availability and quality control of their product lines.)
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 29, 2019, 03:08:28 pm
I also think range and charging will be a big issue with electric trucks, existing batteries just don't hold enough energy for heavy duty use.

https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/11/forget-the-tug-of-war-all-electric-trucks-have-these-two-major-flaws-video/

The mileage on my diesel certainly suffers when towing but even when hauling a 12,000 lb trailer I have around 300 miles range depending on the terrain, and I can fill it up almost anywhere in 15 minutes.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on November 29, 2019, 03:17:23 pm
The mileage on my diesel certainly suffers when towing but even when hauling a 12,000 lb trailer I have around 300 miles range depending on the terrain, and I can fill it up almost anywhere in 15 minutes.

Yes, we need to get data on the mileage under load. We know the unloaded mileage can be 500+, but what hit do you take with a trailer, etc.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 29, 2019, 04:03:10 pm
Yes, we need to get data on the mileage under load. We know the unloaded mileage can be 500+, but what hit do you take with a trailer, etc.

A huge hit. The Model X in the article has a 5000 lb tow rating. Towing a 4400 lb horse trailer their range was cut by 2/3 over the the same circuit when not towing.

Watch the video, it is quite enlightening and surprising.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 30, 2019, 12:14:54 am
Blue collar workers and rural folk would be ideal users of this pickup. They care about cost, and here it has a huge advantage. They do the vast majority of their trips local, and have the charging infrastructure at their home where the truck is always filled up and they may never have to visit another gas station in their lives.

Your Marty McFly, urban hipsters comment is ignorant.

I know a lot of contractors and they wouldn't buy this truck, it looks ridiculous.  If they build one that looks closer to a standard pickup they'd be much more likely to buy one.  The EV tech is fine, the design isn't geared to them quite clearly.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 30, 2019, 01:56:07 pm
 Electric motors are the best for moving heavy loads but existing battery technology just isn't up to storing enough energy for sustained high load operation.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 30, 2019, 03:41:48 pm
Any poster looked into EV battery life in cold climates?   It’s not a pretty picture.

Quote
AAA tested the BMW i3s, Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf from the 2018 model year, and the 2017 Tesla Model S 75D and Volkswagen e-Golf. All have a range of at least 100 miles per charge. They were tested on a dynamometer, which is like a treadmill, in a climate-controlled cell.

The automobile club tested the cars at 20 degrees and 95 degrees, comparing the range to when they were tested at 75 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a report on the study.

At 20 degrees, the average driving range fell by 12 percent when the car’s cabin heater was not used. When the heater was turned on, the range dropped by 41 percent, AAA said.

At 95 degrees, range dropped 4 percent without use of air conditioning, and fell by 17 percent when the cabin was cooled, the study found.
https://apnews.com/04029bd1e0a94cd59ff9540a398c12d1

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on November 30, 2019, 05:07:15 pm
Gas up your Tesla! Hahaha.
https://www.facebook.com/261460544207587/posts/780954728924830/

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on November 30, 2019, 07:01:10 pm
Gas up your Tesla! Hahaha.
https://www.facebook.com/261460544207587/posts/780954728924830/

Hopefully it isn't her car and she isn't that clueless.

It should be interesting if her battery is really low and she isn't near a charger.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 30, 2019, 10:21:11 pm
Way better angle of the truck cab.  Looks a lot bigger here:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AjCOYRyLbyiihg2rIt-hOOJqmb4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19399035/Image_from_iOS__6_.jpg)
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 01, 2019, 01:51:29 pm
Sloping siderails that are really tall.  Ugh.  Awful design for a p/u.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on December 01, 2019, 02:24:20 pm
Sloping siderails that are really tall.  Ugh.  Awful design for a p/u.

Probably good for aerodynamics, not so good for utility.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on December 01, 2019, 02:45:45 pm
Any poster looked into EV battery life in cold climates?   It’s not a pretty picture.

Yes, a battery powered heater is not very efficient. I wonder if any company is looking at using the residual heat from the battery itself to warm the cab, and best of all putting more insulation in vehicles (would be good for both summer and winter).
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 01, 2019, 03:14:27 pm
Yes, a battery powered heater is not very efficient. I wonder if any company is looking at using the residual heat from the battery itself to warm the cab, and best of all putting more insulation in vehicles (would be good for both summer and winter).

More insulation = more weight = less efficient.

Cold climates are just not conducive to EVs that might be used outside of a city at the moment.   If you’re only doing city driving, then it’s not as much of a factor.  But this is one reason that this truck (or any EV) will not be appealing for people in rural areas.  This will be the truck of soccer-moms sitting in parking lots beside other soccer mom’s Ford Excursions. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on December 01, 2019, 03:46:31 pm
More insulation = more weight = less efficient.

I guess that is why they use foam as the structural component in lightweight racing yachts.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on December 01, 2019, 04:05:08 pm
Yes, a battery powered heater is not very efficient. I wonder if any company is looking at using the residual heat from the battery itself to warm the cab, and best of all putting more insulation in vehicles (would be good for both summer and winter).

Probably, they use heat pumps and some are recapturing heat from the instruments and other electronic components for use in the heating system.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 01, 2019, 04:08:43 pm
I guess that is why they use foam as the structural component in lightweight racing yachts.

So you think heat retention insulation in a car is the same as structural foam in a racing yacht?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 01, 2019, 06:51:16 pm
Interesting Provincial cooperation for small nuclear power. 
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5380316
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on December 02, 2019, 10:28:39 am
Interesting Provincial cooperation for small nuclear power. 
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5380316
I have to say, for all the talk of "Green" plans, carbon taxes, etc., I think this has the potential to have the biggest impact on climate change.

Nuclear power is relatively safe (yes, there are risks, but then all power sources have risks), yet improving the technology and/or expanding nuclear power usage has often been overlooked for political reasons (rather than any particular problem with the technology). Ontario is one of the provinces involved, and it would be ironic if Luke "Carbon pricing is the devil!" Ford somehow gives a greater contribution to addressing climate change than the Liberals.

Of course, this is assuming that the co-operation agreement actually goes somewhere.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on December 02, 2019, 10:36:45 am
Interesting Provincial cooperation for small nuclear power. 
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5380316

Lefties on my feed are actually supporting this, even though it has come from Conservatives.

I also think it's a good idea.  And any party that moves forward on real change will be rewarded. That said, it's hard to put "Nuclear Innovation" and "Doug Ford" in the same brain, let alone same thought, or sentence.  All they have to do is supply the politics, though, and hopefully this will get put on somebody's to-do list.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on December 02, 2019, 10:44:48 am
Hopefully these kinds of ideas can survive today's rampant partisanship and be looked at objectively.  I have my doubts.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on December 02, 2019, 10:50:54 am
Sloping siderails that are really tall.  Ugh.  Awful design for a p/u.
the height of the sliderails may actually be a good thing... if you are moving something big (like a fridge) the taller siderails would help keep it in the truck.

The slope could be a problem, but it depends on what is being carried and if it needs to be secured.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 02, 2019, 11:42:34 am
the height of the sliderails may actually be a good thing... if you are moving something big (like a fridge) the taller siderails would help keep it in the truck.

The slope could be a problem, but it depends on what is being carried and if it needs to be secured.

I find most of what I put in my pickup is hefted over the side.  Or I reach in over the side to grab something. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on December 02, 2019, 11:45:07 am
I find most of what I put in my pickup is hefted over the side.  Or I reach in over the side to grab something.

Yup, always having to lower the tailgate and crawl in through the back to get something at the front would be a real PITA.

I have a couple of 18 inch high step stools that fold flat and tuck in on either side of my bed box, just to make access from the side easier.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on December 03, 2019, 06:28:09 pm
So you think heat retention insulation in a car is the same as structural foam in a racing yacht?

The insulation properties are very similar for foam (r-value per inch). Nano-core is a different story.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: ?Impact on December 11, 2019, 02:51:08 pm
I saw a couple of updates on the cybertruck.

1. Tesla now says that the entry level vehicle ($40k) will slip about a year in schedule, but the high end vehicle (3 motor) will move forward about a year. You can take this how you want. Did they hide this fact and only reveal it a couple of weeks after the product announcement, or did they get market feedback on what was the more important vehicle to focus on. My impression of the pickup market is that the mid-tier is where the big business is. I see far more F-150s than Rangers of F-350 SuperDuty (same for the other manufactures). There was no update on their 2 motor model which one might call the mid-tier.

2. I learned another reason for the body styling. The body is stamped out of a single sheet of stainless steel. While this results in improved reliability (other trucks have a half dozen or more body panels), the downside would be if you ever had to replace it. The big difference however is it allows for both lower manufacturing cost, and significant weight reduction. There are however more constraints in design when you manufacture from a single body panel, instead of many that are interconnected.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on December 11, 2019, 06:03:57 pm
Pickups are body on frame with the cab separate from the box for a reason. When owners inevitably overload them, it allows the truck to flex in the middle without distorting  the body work. This used to happen with early Honda Ridgelines which had a one piece unit body. New Ridgelines use a subframe between the front and rear unit bodies to allow some flex. People do overload their trucks and that Tesla will need to be extremely stiff to avoid distorted body panels.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on March 27, 2020, 12:20:07 pm
Oil Price Crash Opens A Window Of Opportunity For Renewables
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Oil-Price-Crash-Opens-A-Window-Of-Opportunity-For-Renewables.html

Just a month ago, companies and investors had a financial incentive to continue investing in new oil and gas projects despite the societal and environmentalist backlash against fossil fuels.    Not anymore.

In just a couple of weeks, the oil price crash made investments in renewable energy starting to look more attractive. Or at least as attractive as investment in oil and gas.
...
At $35 oil, however, the average IRR for oil and gas projects slumps to the renewables return range—5 to 10 percent, according to Wood Mackenzie.
...
Unfortunate as this is for Big Oil’s just-announced pledges to curb emissions and invest more in alternative energies ... "Even if Big Oil stopped investing in renewables altogether, that would have a minor impact on growth.”
 


Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 27, 2020, 12:29:38 pm
In just a couple of weeks, the oil price crash made investments in renewable energy starting to look more attractive. Or at least as attractive as investment in oil and gas.  [/i]

Oil has never looked less enticing an investment that I can remember.  Oil is $21 a barrel, gas is ridiculously low.  It's not good for the Canadian economy but it could be good for the world, will be interesting to see how renewables do after this virus is gone.  It would be nice to walk downtown in any city and not smell and breath exhaust.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 27, 2020, 01:10:41 pm
Now is the time to tax the crap out of it and put the proceeds towards subsidies for renewables.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 27, 2020, 02:06:25 pm
Now is the time to tax the crap out of it and put the proceeds towards subsidies for renewables.

But then what do we do about trucks, airplanes etc. that currently don't have many if any green options?  And EVs that remain twice as expensive as combustion cars?  And still a lack of EV charging stations etc?  Our businesses wont be able to compete internationally either.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 27, 2020, 02:27:19 pm
But then what do we do about trucks, airplanes etc. that currently don't have many if any green options?

What do they do now?  They pay for fuel.  I’m not under the illusion that everything can go electric. 

Quote
  And EVs that remain twice as expensive as combustion cars? 

You don’t think prices for EVs are coming down?

Quote
And still a lack of EV charging stations etc? 

We build them.   ::)


Quote
Our businesses wont be able to compete internationally either.

Businesses that can’t compete adapt or die.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 27, 2020, 02:38:23 pm
What do they do now?  They pay for fuel.  I’m not under the illusion that everything can go electric./quote]

If you "tax the crap" out of fuel and certain things can't go renewable right now, what is the point of the tax?  It doesn't provide incentive.  I'm not against a tax, but maybe we should lower or except certain types of fuel.

Quote
Businesses that can’t compete adapt or die.

There are no alternatives to gas and EV vehicles, besides horse and buggy.  How do they adapt? How do they compete with other businesses globally in ie: the US.  They can't, so yes they die.

If Canadian goods are more expensive, people won't buy them around the world.  If Canadian businesses are less profitable, people around the world won't invest in them.  This is isn't as easy as it seems.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 27, 2020, 02:49:04 pm
Edit:

Your response was mixed in the quotes and I missed it.



There are no alternatives to gas and EV vehicles, besides horse and buggy.  How do they adapt? How do they compete with other businesses globally in ie: the US.  They can't, so yes they die.

So you’re saying we should have kept horse and buggy when the car came along? 

Quote
If Canadian goods are more expensive, people won't buy them around the world.  If Canadian businesses are less profitable, people around the world won't invest in them.  This is isn't as easy as it seems.

I didn’t say it was easy.  You’re arguing a straw man again.

It will be painful and take time...  probably 2 decades plus to make the transition. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on March 27, 2020, 06:03:04 pm
Oil has never looked less enticing an investment that I can remember.  Oil is $21 a barrel, gas is ridiculously low.  It's not good for the Canadian economy but it could be good for the world, will be interesting to see how renewables do after this virus is gone.  It would be nice to walk downtown in any city and not smell and breath exhaust.

Wow. Got a flashback to Toronto's downtown air [edit]  18+ years ago, and how it cleared after 9/11.

Ya, we can do this better.

We can subsidize workers for transitioning to viable industries, instead of subsidizing multinational profits and GHG's.

If we were not subsidizing fossil fuel profits, investors would be fleeing to renewables for profits.

I think we should just free the electricity energy market and let that happen.

I believe in free enterprise in electricity.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 27, 2020, 06:22:50 pm
Quote
Got a flashback to Toronto's downtown air 20 years ago, and how it cleared after 9/11.

Why did air quality get better after 9/11?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on March 29, 2020, 03:49:19 pm
Why did air quality get better after 9/11?

Government + shutdown - everybody went home.

It was silent except for the military airplanes.
I don't remember how many days, but the air cleared, was fresh.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 29, 2020, 04:10:24 pm
Government + shutdown - everybody went home.

It was silent except for the military airplanes.
I don't remember how many days, but the air cleared, was fresh.

There was no shutdown, other than in NY city.

Planes only stopped flying for a short time.  There is no way you noticed any effect unless you lived right beside an airport.  And the air would not have been any noticeably cleaner.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on March 30, 2020, 12:39:10 pm
There was no shutdown, other than in NY city.

Planes only stopped flying for a short time.  There is no way you noticed any effect unless you lived right beside an airport.  And the air would not have been any noticeably cleaner.

It wasn't the airplanes.

It was the lack of cars. Pardon my lack of clarity.
All government and most banking & corporate offices in downtown Toronto closed after 9/11.
The downtown core was eerily quiet, almost free of cars, and the air was much clearer than usual.
I lived there.

I didn't mean to derail the thread, but the similarity to conditions now just struck me.

I think we're in for a longer haul now, though.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on April 13, 2020, 08:05:55 am
THIS is what I've been waiting for!

https://youtu.be/saoyArcz3zE

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on April 13, 2020, 11:55:46 am
THIS is what I've been waiting for!

2015 video - why did you wait so long?  ;D
ok, ok... that company went by the way in 2017 (as in amalgamated into... typical/standard distribution). Perhaps try a googly for alternatives - don't wait any more!
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on April 13, 2020, 11:09:46 pm
2015 video - why did you wait so long?  ;D
ok, ok... that company went by the way in 2017 (as in amalgamated into... typical/standard distribution). Perhaps try a googly for alternatives - don't wait any more!

Ya ... nah ... Maybe just a baby backup ... lol
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: guest78 on April 14, 2020, 10:27:22 am
Now is the time to tax the crap out of it and put the proceeds towards subsidies for renewables.
Probably the dumbest idea ever.  Taxing the “crap” out of them will not result in the complete collapse of the industry.  Resulting in massive job loss, no proceeds to use as subsidies, and a huge increase in oil imports to make up for the loss of production.  Literally the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 14, 2020, 11:40:01 am
Probably the dumbest idea ever.  Taxing the “crap” out of them will not result in the complete collapse of the industry.  Resulting in massive job loss, no proceeds to use as subsidies, and a huge increase in oil imports to make up for the loss of production.  Literally the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.

Yeah....  i meant tax them out of business.  That’s it.   ::)
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on April 18, 2020, 03:41:36 pm
Yeah....  i meant tax them out of business.  That’s it.   ::)

It isn't really necessary to take any action at all, except reducing the subsidies for oil and gas production.
Without subsidy money propping up oil profits, renewable energy becomes more profitable.
Investors go where the profits are and we have a fast rollout of renewable energy.

We just have to set the energy market free.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 19, 2020, 12:49:18 pm


We just have to set the energy market free.

You’re talking nonsense Granny.   We need government intervention to ensure that there are the incentives for green energy and the disincentives for dirty energy.  Phasing out of internal combustion engines and forcing all vehicles to be zero emissions by a certain date is not “setting the energy market free”.  It’s just the opposite. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on April 20, 2020, 03:16:46 pm
I guess a much better way to destroy the Oil Market is to force everyone to stay home because of Global Pandemic.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2020, 03:39:23 pm
You’re talking nonsense Granny.   We need government intervention to ensure that there are the incentives for green energy and the disincentives for dirty energy.  Phasing out of internal combustion engines and forcing all vehicles to be zero emissions by a certain date is not “setting the energy market free”.  It’s just the opposite.

Our governments will be running monster deficits this year and probably next year as well. There will be no money for incentives or appetite to suppress the economy further with added taxes. Business is on life support so don't expect money from there either. If anything, this pandemic will slow the transition to cleaner energy sources.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2020, 03:44:57 pm
I'm not an economist so this negative oil price thing is new to me but my gas gauge is down to a quarter tank so I'm expecting a nice surprise when I get to the pumps.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 20, 2020, 03:59:39 pm
Our governments will be running monster deficits this year and probably next year as well. There will be no money for incentives or appetite to suppress the economy further with added taxes. Business is on life support so don't expect money from there either. If anything, this pandemic will slow the transition to cleaner energy sources.

You don’t have a clue what will happen coming out of this.  If oil proces stay depressed, it’s probably the perfect time to switch to renewables as there will be much less investment into the industry.  This was already happening prior to this.

There will certainly be added taxes to those who can afford it.  There is probably no other option, if we want better preparation for this the next time with respect to PPE, medical equipment and all the other shortfalls that have been talked about.  As well as dealing with the coming deficit and/or depression. 

If you’re making 80+ grand a year, maybe you’ll have to make do with 1 car in the future and a more modest house.  Not the end of the world.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 20, 2020, 04:21:41 pm
I guess a much better way to destroy the Oil Market is to force everyone to stay home because of Global Pandemic.

I wonder if the  origin of this virus is actually Elizabeth May?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: waldo on April 20, 2020, 04:38:16 pm
I guess a much better way to destroy the Oil Market is to force everyone to stay home because of Global Pandemic.

it's boggling to realize KindDealmakerTrump's intervention with OPEC didn't manage pricing/supply!  ;D

member Boges, take solace from those claiming hay-SOOS is the Vaccine, or from those Trump patriots whining about needing a haircut... they certainly don't accept being, as you say, forced!


in any case, the waldo ponders if this market reality is a forerunner to what to expect with 2030-2050's ever decreasing reliance on fossil-fuel...
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: bcsapper on April 20, 2020, 05:00:50 pm
I'm not an economist so this negative oil price thing is new to me but my gas gauge is down to a quarter tank so I'm expecting a nice surprise when I get to the pumps.

58 cents/litre today
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2020, 05:05:28 pm
58 cents/litre today

Where are those pumps?!
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on April 20, 2020, 05:08:23 pm
!!
Oil price goes into negative territory as traders get squeezed running for the exits

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-monday-1.5538048
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: bcsapper on April 20, 2020, 05:11:45 pm
Where are those pumps?!

Drayton Valley
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2020, 05:16:17 pm
Drayton Valley

Better than we've got but the drive over there to fuel up would offset difference. Unless I rented an 18 wheeler with some really big tanks in tow.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on April 22, 2020, 09:11:27 pm
We need government intervention to ensure that there are the incentives for green energy and the disincentives for dirty energy. 

Yes, by shifting some oil subsidies and tipping profitability to renewable energy.

Free the energy market.


Quote
Phasing out of internal combustion engines and forcing all vehicles to be zero emissions by a certain date is not “setting the energy market free”.  It’s just the opposite.

Green the electricity grid is the first goal. That's the big energy production.

Cars get replaced naturally. No need to force that.
Soon all internal combustion engine vehicles will be classics. 
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: wilber on April 22, 2020, 10:23:47 pm
Gas is so cheap I'll be doing lots of socially isolated cruising in the old land yacht this summer, who cares if it only gets 11 MPG on premium.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Granny on June 14, 2020, 11:13:15 pm
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4353723-time-to-overweight-renewable-energy

*Oil consumption could very well have peaked in 2019 at about 100 million barrels per day.

*Some see the rise of remote working as the biggest threat to oil demand going forward.

*Coal use in the U.S. has been in decline, and in 2019, electricity generated from renewable sources surpassed coal for the first time in over 130 years.

*The S&P Global Clean Energy Index was up almost 45 percent for the two-year period through June 5.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on September 03, 2021, 01:06:16 pm
Looked up my Carbon Tax credit:

Tax return line 45110   
Climate Action Incentive (CAI)   $525.00

I calculate this to be more than 25% of what I pay annually for vehicle fuel.  So 4.42 cents per litre means zero to me.

I win.

Yay Trudeau.

Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on September 03, 2021, 02:34:38 pm
Looked up my Carbon Tax credit:

Tax return line 45110   
Climate Action Incentive (CAI)   $525.00

I calculate this to be more than 25% of what I pay annually for vehicle fuel.  So 4.42 cents per litre means zero to me.

I win.

Yay Trudeau.

So you judge government programs on whether you pay more?

Personally, I judge the government’s policies on whether they work. 

(https://www.canada.ca/content/canadasite/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions/_jcr_content/par/mwstabbed_interface_/summary-details0/mwsadaptiveimage/image.img.png/1617284652051.png)

The government hasn’t reduced GHGs in Canada whatsoever.  And you want to cheer Trudeau for his great climate change policies? 

I think your metrics are f@cked up.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on September 03, 2021, 03:10:03 pm
1. So you judge government programs on whether you pay more? Personally, I judge the government’s policies on whether they work. 
 

2. The government hasn’t reduced GHGs in Canada whatsoever.  And you want to cheer Trudeau for his great climate change policies? 

I think your metrics are f@cked up.
1. You are incapable of spotting fake glee.
2. Nothing like that.  I'm tacitly cutting down the 'Trudeau's Carbon Tax is a burden' meme.  It is not.  Is it an effective program ?  To be seen.  Is it better than O'Toole's ?  Yes.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on September 03, 2021, 03:59:06 pm
1. You are incapable of spotting fake glee.
2. Nothing like that.  I'm tacitly cutting down the 'Trudeau's Carbon Tax is a burden' meme.  It is not.  Is it an effective program ?  To be seen.  Is it better than O'Toole's ?  Yes.

1 - Or, you are incapable of projecting fake glee.  ;)

2 - Agreed.  So far, it hasn’t been nearly enough.  But most people who cared to look into it knew it wouldn’t be.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 03, 2021, 04:04:52 pm
Looked up my Carbon Tax credit:

Tax return line 45110   
Climate Action Incentive (CAI)   $525.00

I calculate this to be more than 25% of what I pay annually for vehicle fuel.  So 4.42 cents per litre means zero to me.

I win.

Yay Trudeau.

Yay Trudeau for giving you free money and charging it to the debt.

I agree with the carbon tax, but this PM is the most fiscally irresponsible PM in the country's history by orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: The Cynic on September 03, 2021, 04:12:46 pm
Yes, by shifting some oil subsidies and tipping profitability to renewable energy.
Oil and gas do not need subsidies to be profitable. Nor does it get much. Most of what the environmental lobby calls 'subsidies' are things like not charging the oil and gas industry for the pollution cars put out.

Wind and solar will never be profitable in Canada. Nor reliable. We either build nuclear power stations or give up.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 03, 2021, 04:18:38 pm
1. You are incapable of spotting fake glee.
2. Nothing like that.  I'm tacitly cutting down the 'Trudeau's Carbon Tax is a burden' meme.  It is not.  Is it an effective program ?  To be seen.  Is it better than O'Toole's ?  Yes.

What's O'Toole's policy you're basing this assessment on?

But yeah, the carbon tax is actually net profitable to people it seems!  Trudeau expects that he can buy the votes of Canadians by doing these kinds of things.  He is so selfish and corrupt that he is perfectly willing to ruin Canada's fiscally strong debt position that he inherited in order to buy people's votes in an attempt to secure his own job and power.  A patriot is someone who doesn't compromise the interests of their country for their own self-serving interests.  And to be fair, any Canadian whose votes  can be bought in this fashion is no less corrupt, self-serving, and unpatriotic than a crooked politician whose votes can be bought off by corporate lobbyists.

Ask not what your country can do for...
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: BC_cheque on September 03, 2021, 04:41:40 pm
Wind and solar will never be profitable in Canada. Nor reliable. We either build nuclear power stations or give up.

What??
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 03, 2021, 06:26:48 pm
What??

Canada will never be able to rely on solar because there isn't enough sun in the winter.  Wind i'm not sure but it also isn't reliable on its own (sometimes its not windy, and it gets much less windy at night), and would need a steady supporting energy source to supply a baseload.  Hydro and nuclear would be the only ones that don't emit GHG that I can think of, maybe geothermal too.

For me the environmental risk of more GHG is much higher than that of nuclear so countries should consider it.  Spent uranium could be buried a long way under the ground.  Biggest worry is probably the risk of potential reactor malfunction or terrorism, but there's tons of nuclear plants out there including 6 in Canada without problems.

Then again I'm no expert whatsoever.  We should hand these problems to scientists and engineers instead of making it so political because the PR of doing things that are unpopular aren't always the correct decisions because most people, including myself, generally have no expertise on any of this.  The average person's abaility to even educate themselves is very difficult because most of the sources of info on energy are from oil companies, renewable energy companies, or environmental activists.  In other words, everyone has a conflict of interest.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: MH on September 03, 2021, 09:13:53 pm
Revenue neutral, Graham
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: eyeball on September 03, 2021, 11:28:47 pm
Revenue neutral, Graham
Some nuclear plants being designed burn spent nuclear fuel while operating much more safely than the old reactors. Operators might even turn a profit taking nuclear waste off of other countries hands. Given most nuclear waste of this type came from Canadian uranium in the first place there's probably a good ethical case that ties it all together with taking responsibility for leaving a better world behind.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Boges on September 08, 2021, 08:21:11 am
Some nuclear plants being designed burn spent nuclear fuel while operating much more safely than the old reactors. Operators might even turn a profit taking nuclear waste off of other countries hands. Given most nuclear waste of this type came from Canadian uranium in the first place there's probably a good ethical case that ties it all together with taking responsibility for leaving a better world behind.

Nuclear really is the only way out of this Carbon addiction.

How much quality land will have to be sacrificed if we were to only focus on Wind and Solar?
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: segnosaur on September 08, 2021, 09:47:39 am
Oil and gas do not need subsidies to be profitable. Nor does it get much. Most of what the environmental lobby calls 'subsidies' are things like not charging the oil and gas industry for the pollution cars put out.
Even if the direct subsidies (along the lines of "Here's a tax cut to help pay for exploration) to oil and gas are minimal and not needed, that doesn't mean there aren't indirect subsidies.

Fossil fuel usage contributes to global warming, which means things like increased flooding in coastal areas, food production problems, increased numbers of forest fires. (Not saying that these didn't happen before... just that they will become more common.) At this point in time, those using the fossil fuels don't necessarily pay for the costs of dealing with those externalities, so that amounts to a sort of 'back door' subsidy for fossil fuels. (Carbon taxes do address this to a certain degree, but those are relatively new.)
Quote
Wind and solar will never be profitable in Canada. Nor reliable. We either build nuclear power stations or give up.
I agree that expansion of nuclear power would be great benefit in dealing with global warming, and I certainly hope we build new plants (with new technology where appropriate).

About wind/solar: It is true that there will be times when an individual solar or wind installation will be ineffective due to lack of wind or cloudy weather. But the plan is that there will be multiple wind/solar plants in different geographical areas. While one plant may not work, another will be able to cover for it. (No different than a nuclear or fossil fuel plant being down for maintenance.... other generating capacity will be expected to cover for it.)

Now, I don't think wind or solar by themselves will provide all the electricity needs. (I do think nuclear, hydro, etc.) will also need to be a major part of the mix.) But, that doesn't mean they can't be part of the mix, or that they can't be profitable.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: The Cynic on October 18, 2021, 05:34:09 pm
This guy is almost as cynical as I am, but he puts things pretty clearly in terms of our bombastic political class offering up unrealistic promises for CO2 emission reductions which will never be met and cannot be met.

Progressives are very excited, hoping the promises will be big ones. Already a few countries have gotten out in front with their pledges, eager to demonstrate their prowess at promising. President Joe Biden says the United States will cut its emissions by 50 per cent from 2005 levels within a decade, even if it has to slap windmills along the entire U.S. coastline.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is very good at promising, says Canada will cut emissions by up to 45 per cent by 2030. The Liberals haven’t hit any of their previous targets and aren’t expected to do so this year, but failing to meet past promises never stops them from making new ones.

It’s anyone’s guess what other commitments will be revealed, but you can bet they’ll be offered with great fanfare and an abundance of approval. Chinese President Xi Jinping may not show up in person, but Beijing will no doubt offer its usual assurance that the world’s biggest emitter — i.e., the country Xi runs — is utterly committed to sharply reducing its reliance on fossil fuels by planning and developing a network of alternative energy sources.

After all, as Xi told a global biodiversity conference last week, “When we take care to protect nature, nature rewards us generously; when we exploit nature ruthlessly, it punishes us without mercy.” Well said, well said. Applause everyone, please. Anyone else here got a promise to toss on the pile?



https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-world-leaders-ready-big-new-climate-pledges-as-past-failures-leave-people-cold-and-poor
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 18, 2021, 11:41:40 pm
Politicians need to stop making targets, they rarely hit them.  Just do the best to reduce emissions.
Title: Re: Addressing climate change
Post by: eyeball on October 19, 2021, 12:59:32 am
Politicians need to stop making targets, they rarely hit them.  Just do the best to reduce emissions.
So promise less and deliver more?

Good luck.