We don't need to raise taxes to control our environmental footprint. The company I'm at now actually takes off-gas from upgraders and turns it into usable spec products. In a few years most of all that carbon coming off oil sands upgraders will be turned into plastic removing it completly from the atmosphere. To me this is a better way to do things responsibly than all the "raise gas tax to make people use less oil" crowd.
I'd like to know more about this carbon capture into plastics. Most of the carbon capture schemes I've heard of entail burying it.
And how do we capture it from consumers (furnaces, cars)?
ENMAX has nothing to do with that, unless you buy the units from them, and it is one of the better deals out there - what is it you don't like? You are free to purchase panels anywhere you want. I think ENMAX actually lets you pay it off over many many years. I drive an electric car and researched a few generation options - none so far are worth my investment.
The only tax I would be supportive of is a tax on the oil companies, per barrel (or something like that) that would go to fund Alberta research on development of solar panels, turbines, etc.
I'd like to hear how you figure Enmax has nothing to do with the program they are offering.
What don't I like- did you read the rest of my post; including the link to the plan in Ontario that I like?
I not only read them, I researched the subject for a long time. ENMAX basically sells panels, but you are not limited to just them. You can buy panels elsewhere. So why is ENMAX responsible for you not going solar?
MIAMI BEACH — The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door.
“This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”
Down the block at an electronics store it is even worse. Jankel Aleman, a salesman, keeps plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around his feet when he trudges from his car to the store through ever-rising waters.
A new scientific report on global warming released this week, the National Climate Assessment, named Miami as one of the cities most vulnerable to severe damage as a result of rising sea levels. Alton Road, a commercial thoroughfare in the heart of stylish South Beach, is getting early ripples of sea level rise caused by global warming — even as Florida’s politicians, including two possible contenders for the presidency in 2016, are starkly at odds over what to do about it and whether the problem is even real.
Quote:
“Sea level rise is our reality in Miami Beach,” said the city’s mayor, Philip Levine. “We are past the point of debating the existence of climate change and are now focusing on adapting to current and future threats.” In the face of encroaching saltwater and sunny-day flooding like that on Alton Road, Mr. Levine has supported a $400 million spending project to make the city’s drainage system more resilient in the face of rising tides.
It's getting tougher and tougher to obfuscate, confuse and deny that climate change is real and that it is happening in real time to many cities.
I'm honestly confused by the bolded. Shouldn't anything in reality occur "in real time"? I mean, our perception of time, which is to say real time, is the linear progression we experience. To go to non-real time would likely either be an odd physics application or a turn based existence in video games.
Does "in real time" mean "at a rate appreciable over the course of a lifetime" as your link appears to allude to?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
So to me, Climate Change is a bit of red herring (not that it isn't real..it is)...but in Alberta its a very important economic argument that gets us to the same place...what are we going to do when markets won't buy our oil?
We're already experiencing it. Alberta is, rightly or wrongly, square in the sights of the climate debate with its oilsands. The typical response by the right-wing, deniers, corporate sociopaths, and oil dependent government is a "woe-is-me" attitude that we've been unfairly targeted. The response has been to straighten out the debate, to say that the oilsands aren't actually that bad, to counter facts with different facts, to try to wiggle out of the unfortunate position that they've caught themselves in.
And how has that gone? The lens on the oilsands has only intensified. The visual cues of the tailings pits are emotional and visceral. We didn't fully accept how lasting the brand sticks once it's been applied. But these tactics failed to recognized this basic truism: Climate change isn't going away and the only true course of action that will address the growing anti-oilsands lobby is by actually doing something.
It's the classic failure of using tactics in the place of strategy.
So getting back to your point. The LACK of climate change policy in the oilsands is now the industry's and the province's greatest liability. Governors in four year cycles and CEOs reporting every quarter could not see the writing on the wall. Desperate to save the golden goose by not placing any additional burden on the sector they have now exposed the economy to a massive downside risk. The belief that "America will always buy our oil" is now dated and dangerously naive. The pipelines to tidewater are decades and supreme court cases away. The spectre of much slower growth in the sector is now here, and much of that has to do with failing to understand just how badly positioned they made the oil sands by failing to understand that the tide was coming in on climate change.
The only way forward is real policy. It's to deploy the plastic making tech at the upgraders, which unfortunately does need some type of tax or fee to make that tech economic. We'll see if Alberta has the cajones.
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
I'm honestly confused by the bolded. Shouldn't anything in reality occur "in real time"? I mean, our perception of time, which is to say real time, is the linear progression we experience. To go to non-real time would likely either be an odd physics application or a turn based existence in video games.
Does "in real time" mean "at a rate appreciable over the course of a lifetime" as your link appears to allude to?
Beyond semantics, what is your point?
My point is that climate impacts far from being projected as decades away are now here and taking roost. As the article states Miami is going to pay $400 million in adaptation to climate change. The COSTS of climate change are here now which in the case of Miami could be in the trillions of dollars.
Why does this matter? Should we just be nihilistic about it? Well no we should learn from this. We've been deciding for the past 20 years that we didn't want to pay the costs of acting early to avoid the costs or dealing with the aftermath. And now here are dealing with the costs of it actually happening which will be orders of magnitude more expensive to adapt than had we chosen to mitigate 20 years ago. The kicker is though that we're still faced with this choice, do we pay now to avoid damage in 20 years?
I was just talking about how it seems that the pro vax side is starting to gain back some ground on the damage done by anti vaxxers, now with all the horrible stories of vaccine preventable diseases making comebacks all over the world, and people dying.. Sad of course that it takes such real world suffering and deaths to wake these idiots up to the reason why we vaccinate in the first place.
I have a feeling those who are still denying climate change which is a substantial group worldwide will need to see for themselves in horrible world events before they are convinced. Sadly we all know by then it will be much too late to do much about it, we are already unable to do much about the next 50-100 years, we will see some drastic changes and it will cause incredible human suffering for many, mostly poor will suffer as usual.
I just put all my faith in geo engineering and science to help reverse or minimize the upcoming affects on our climate, I have little faith in humanity to do so.
I generally put climate-change deniers in the same group as the anti-vax crowd, or the anti-evolution crowd... people I just don't need to waste time associating with.
But with a lot of Albertans, usually people are smart enough to know better, but don't want to disrupt the sweet paycheck so I think everyone here just tries to ignore it. Which I can understand from a practical level.
However, I always keep hoping Alberta will find a way to use all that amazingly smart and educated workforce and try to channel it into building up next-wave energy tech of the future. I'd love to see us slowly become the Silicon Valley of energy, and maybe in a generation or two, be able to phase out oil without much of a blip.
Clearly there's just too much easy money in the traditional fields to make it worthwhile right now. There has to be some more positive incentive...but it doesn't seem like it will ever come from the provincial government.
This is a great perspective on this issue. I totally agree that a lot of Albertans heads are in the sand about this issue simply because it affects them so deeply on a personal level. When an issue like this one directly affects people's bank balances it gets very difficult to keep an open mind on the dangers posed to themselves and the future generations.
I think the tar sands development is tragic. Despite what the industry apologists, lobbyists and cronie public representatives spout in the media and to their constituents I believe the development is irreversibly altering the ecosystem of a large chunk of Northern Alberta. To think that won't affect the province as a whole is short-sighted and naive.
Looking at the issue pragmatically: if the people of Alberta are allowing the industry to ravage the ecosystem and environment, thus affecting current and future generations, I personally would want the government and people of Alberta to be getting a much better deal. I would want processing plants built in Alberta, allowing the bitumen to be processed locally rather than shipped to the US and China at wholesale rates. I would want the industry to contribute more via tax, rather than be given ample tax breaks at every angle. Government cuts to health and education are completely unacceptable when there are corporations making gazillions off the backs of the people and resources of a land. I would want the engineering firms to be discouraged from outsourcing many of the engineering jobs to China so that we keep most of these jobs and money in Alberta. This practice has been sneakily implemented, but huge amounts of locally trained engineers are getting laid off in favour of cheaper, outsourced workers. Unacceptable. I would expect these corporations to contribute much more to the arts and culture scene, as they are expected to do in big oil money states like Texas. Though many Albertans do pretty well off the tar sands, the American companies are getting away with highway robbery compared to what they would if they excavated this oil from their own country, and the government is allowing them to do it. Why? Because they are the major league financial contributors to the politicians, that's why.
When you dance with the Devil, the Devil calls the steps. If you're allowing your soul to be sold you'd better make sure it's not for the discounted rate. If you're jeopardising your children's future well-being then financially and culturally there had best be the maximum benefit to the maximum amount of the population.
I'm trying to figure out why you put in the comment of it occurring "in real time". Again, I feel such a point should be self-evident and that accepting climate change should also mean accepting that it exists within the concept of real time. I ask because I am unsure if it holds a different meaning than this rather silly definition that comes to mind.
As per the rest of your response, it appears a bit of an aside to my post as it refers to a possible interpretation I had of how you might have meant the phrase "in real time" to be interpreted.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
You can buy panels elsewhere. So why is ENMAX responsible for you not going solar?
Yes, you can buy panels elsewhere. However Enmax will not allow you to tie them onto their grid. You have to buy the Enmax system, or go completely off grid.
Once again, how is a company in Ontario able to do it for no cost when Enmax has a cost in the thousands/ ten thousands? That is my main point. Going solar can be done with zero cost to the consumer. If we look at innovative ways to make it just as easy to be "green" as it is to use fossil fuels, people will do it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
Yes, you can buy panels elsewhere. However Enmax will not allow you to tie them onto their grid. You have to buy the Enmax system, or go completely off grid.
Once again, how is a company in Ontario able to do it for no cost when Enmax has a cost in the thousands/ ten thousands? That is my main point. Going solar can be done with zero cost to the consumer. If we look at innovative ways to make it just as easy to be "green" as it is to use fossil fuels, people will do it.
The reason it is 'zero cost' to the consumer is due to a program the Ontario government put in place in order to promote green industries and non-central electricity generation in the province.
The government buys electricity made from solar panels at 39.6 cents/kWh, the cost of which is borne by the taxpayers through higher utility rates and I believe general taxes. The solar panel company can install them for free as it is so lucrative for them they know their costs will be covered to install, maintain and insure, all while paying the customer a fee to use their roof as a mini solar farm essentially.
The government has taken a beating from anyone on the right wing in the province over this deal, and it might be part of the reason the Liberals are in real trouble this election.
I personally think it's a pretty innovative way to get things moving away from conventional power generation, and it's not like these costs are going away if we put things off.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rubicant For This Useful Post:
Yes, you can buy panels elsewhere. However Enmax will not allow you to tie them onto their grid. You have to buy the Enmax system, or go completely off grid.
Once again, how is a company in Ontario able to do it for no cost when Enmax has a cost in the thousands/ ten thousands? That is my main point. Going solar can be done with zero cost to the consumer. If we look at innovative ways to make it just as easy to be "green" as it is to use fossil fuels, people will do it.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubicant
The reason it is 'zero cost' to the consumer is due to a program the Ontario government put in place in order to promote green industries and non-central electricity generation in the province.
Yes, and I agree with what has been done. Here in Alberta there are billions being spent on upgrading transmission lines and power plants; when that money could go to local "generating" of power via solar. The paying a premium for solar power and charging regular customers a higher rate goes right into what I was saying before about adjusting the prices. That way the green people get directly subsidized by the people who aren't green.
So instead of the average customer paying 8¢ per kwh, charge them 12¢ and then use that extra 4¢ to pay for the solar power. (Keeping in mind that currently a significant percentage of power being generated is non-solar.) If 10% of the power is solar, that 40¢ per kwh can be paid for by the difference.
I'd like to know more about this carbon capture into plastics. Most of the carbon capture schemes I've heard of entail burying it.
And how do we capture it from consumers (furnaces, cars)?
I don't think anyone responded to this. There are some very old reactions which can transform various carbon gases into more usable products (i.e. Fishcer-Tropsch), however there are a lot of challenges to overcome with these processes. For example, the reaction I mentioned typically results in statistical mixtures of products which can be somewhat controlled by changing reaction conditions but still gives a mix with needs timely/costly purification (unless purification is deemed unnecessary). It's all very promising, but there are some serious scientific and engineering concerns involved with transforming carbon waste into something usable. Also, these processes are subject to the same economies any project is. Nobody likes this answer, but is it profitable?
Yes, you can buy panels elsewhere. However Enmax will not allow you to tie them onto their grid. You have to buy the Enmax system, or go completely off grid.
That simply is not true. ENMAX Power does not sell panels and allows any qualified devices to attach to their system. You are thinking ENMAX Energy, they are a retailer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Once again, how is a company in Ontario able to do it for no cost when Enmax has a cost in the thousands/ ten thousands? That is my main point. Going solar can be done with zero cost to the consumer. If we look at innovative ways to make it just as easy to be "green" as it is to use fossil fuels, people will do it.
Their business model is based on installing their system on your house and paying you for that access. Enmax power does not choose the value of energy. If the value of generation is high enough, their business model is sound. It is not high enough in Alberta, but your local utility has nothing to do with that.
If you are seriously interested, I am a geek on this stuff and can walk you through the finer details.
Last edited by Nage Waza; 05-09-2014 at 01:33 PM.
Reason: Spelling
