Author Topic: Wreck of Saskatchewan  (Read 1325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2018, 06:16:02 pm »
Who cares what politically motivated professional societies may have to say? What matters are the result of cost analysis done by qualified people (i.e. people who will be held responsible if a project fails) on different possible CO2 reduction strategies. Some strategies may be useful but expensive (nuclear). Some may be expensive and useless (solar/wind because of the need for backup power).


"politically motivated professional societies" - oh really!  ;D how so - do tell, do tell

your perpetual dismissal of science and the world-wide body of scientists and scientific organizations/institutions is LEGION... good to read you bringing forward a new 'wrinkle' here with your outright dismissal of 'engineering and project management' related professional societies. You're such a rebel!

I'm shocked you can't provide the cites I've asked you for - shocked I tells ya - shocked!

Whether you want to believe it or not the numbers don't add up and the proof is in the lack of any real progress. If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.

I'll ask again: do you claim all manner of 'political opposition' reflects upon (your perceived) economic viability? You mean... there's no oppo related to luddite deniers & fake skeptics - like you?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2018, 06:19:21 pm »
A mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.

how disingenuous can you be? You're so full of ****! Why choose the full complement of/across 28 countries... why not target the top 5... even the top 10 leading EU countries?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2018, 06:55:00 pm »
Yes the assumption is that biomass & waste will regrow in a number of years, and that number is usually measured in decades where fossil fuels is measured in hundreds of millions of years.
That is a big assumption and when politicians set 'targets' that have no connection to reality the people tasked with running the system will look the other way if suppliers are using inefficient harvesting methods or are failing to replant the biomass (the diesel emission cheating is a good example of the 'what I don't know can't hurt me' process in action). Biomass is also not where the majority of money is being spent - most of that is going into solar and wind which is providing a miserable return on investment. So it is deceptive to use biomass to exaggerate the "success" of wind and solar.

Please note that I am not against solar and wind if we had economically viable grid scale storage. The trouble is grid scale storage with the capacity required to replace 24x7 baseload is prohibitively expensive and there are no signs that costs will drop by the orders of magnitude required to make it viable.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2018, 08:12:45 pm »
Yet another display of tautology.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 08:15:18 pm by Omni »

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2018, 09:23:56 am »
A Carbon Tax and/or Cap and Trade Schemes are useless tax grabs.

And these versions aren't even revenue neutral like the one Stephane Dion got trounced advocating for in 2008.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #50 on: May 10, 2018, 09:40:59 am »
A Carbon Tax and/or Cap and Trade Schemes are useless tax grabs.

So you think that people should be rewardes for bad behavior? If you destroy the environment, or if you deplete resources then that is to be commended rather than taxed?

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #51 on: May 10, 2018, 09:53:55 am »
So you think that people should be rewardes for bad behavior? If you destroy the environment, or if you deplete resources then that is to be commended rather than taxed?

Driving isn't bad behaviour, it's transportation, often to places where you go contribute to the economy(and the tax base). Money spent on an ADDITIONAL gasoline tax is money taken from other parts of the economy.

I fully support pursuing more fuel efficient models or embracing electric car models. Why are hybrids so much more expensive?

A good percentage of our country can't use public transit to anything else.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #52 on: May 10, 2018, 03:52:25 pm »
A good percentage of our country can't use public transit to anything else.

Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #53 on: May 10, 2018, 07:39:28 pm »
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.

They do use it when it is efficient. Unless there is a reason I need to take a vehicle, I always take Skytrain into downtown Vancouver. Of course I have to drive for 45 minutes to the nearest station.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #54 on: May 10, 2018, 10:16:50 pm »
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.
Not technically true. Public transit is only more energy efficient when there is high population density. If someone wants to go to the store at 8PM an SUV is actually more efficient than a diesel bus:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/pdf

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #55 on: May 10, 2018, 10:27:39 pm »
Not technically true. Public transit is only more energy efficient when there is high population density. If someone wants to go to the store at 8PM an SUV is actually more efficient than a diesel bus:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/pdf

They usually don't put public transit in places that don't have high population density. Try again l'il buddy.
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2018, 10:55:44 pm »
They usually don't put public transit in places that don't have high population density. Try again l'il buddy.
If you read the link and educated yourself instead of pontificating you would have found that off peak diesel buses consume more energy per passenger mile than trucks or SUVs even in high density areas because the number of passengers drops off. Hence my point about it being more energy efficient to drive an SUV at 8PM than take a bus. 

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2018, 01:46:24 am »
If you read the link and educated yourself instead of pontificating you would have found that off peak diesel buses consume more energy per passenger mile than trucks or SUVs even in high density areas because the number of passengers drops off. Hence my point about it being more energy efficient to drive an SUV at 8PM than take a bus.

So all you are confirming to us is that idiots that like to drive their SUV's even though public transit is still available but they don't want to adjust their schedule because they like to go when they want and to hell with the environment. Sounds about right.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2018, 08:12:31 am »
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.

Yeah all drivers use SUVs.

Even if you did use public transit to get from one community to another, you have the first and last mile problem.

In Toronto specifically, if everyone stopped driving tomorrow, the public transit system would be overwhelmed.

With Public transit, trips that could take 45 minutes take 2 hours.

It's just not feasible for a vast number of people. The government creates urban sprawl and now is punishing people for participating in it.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #59 on: May 11, 2018, 08:16:53 am »
So all you are confirming to us is that idiots that like to drive their SUV's even though public transit is still available but they don't want to adjust their schedule because they like to go when they want and to hell with the environment. Sounds about right.

Yeah freedom is cool ain't it. I like walking to places wherever possible, but if you can go some place in 5 minutes or a half hour, it's far more efficient of your time to use a car.

It's less about money or the environment than people's time. And YES! people should want to move where they work (I currently do and it's great), but that's very difficult with Real Estate prices and the fact that couples may work in different cities.

And you make yourself look foolish by going back to this SUV pejorative. People who buy SUV are often families that need to transport multiple people to multiple places. I drive a 4 cylinder sedan that gets 500-600 kms per 50L tank.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 08:25:45 am by Boges »