Green Tories? Harper Rolls Out Environmental Policy

[Lurch]

One idiotic idea off the top of my head is to send a giant disc into space (like huge) and manipulate its position to allow for more/less light/heat to hit certain areas of the earth (like maybe the polar caps?). Probably dumb and unworkable (I assume...), but I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility to think we could affect global temperature, up or down.

Even if feasible, who pays. Developed countries aren't willing to cut emissions even with direct benefits to their country - why would they pay for something that will primarily benefit underdeveloped nations in coastal areas. As for the feasibility, I imagine something like that would have to be ungodly large to appreciably impact the amount of solar radiation hitting the planet.

[Flames in 07]

Lurch, your missing my point.

Who cares if it doubles, increases by a smaller or larger amount. My point is that most people like GHG reductions until it means something material to them. Just human nature.

As for BP reducing GHG emissions, I doubt you know exactly how that math worked, and probably only a dozen or so folks at BP do, but I do know they have removed themselves from assets over the years in Canada, that's a good way to reduce GHG's. I do know that the country and province as a whole had absolutly no hope of acheiving anything close to what Kyoto called for. And if we did get to Kyoto levels, it would only be though a massive reduction in production ... then $2.00 gasoline might made alot of sense.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Even if feasible, who pays. Developed countries aren't willing to cut emissions even with direct benefits to their country - why would they pay for something that will primarily benefit underdeveloped nations in coastal areas.

Fair enough. Though, if the developed countries were far-sighted they'd probably agree to foot a hefty bill. Large portions of Europe/North America/Asia have a lot of coastline, its not just Africa/South America that would see dramatic climactic impact.

As for the feasibility, I imagine something like that would have to be ungodly large to appreciably impact the amount of solar radiation hitting the planet.

Sure... but the closer we get it to the Sun, the less huge it has to be. The idea wouldn't be to shade the world, but maybe a few less hours of sunlight hitting a few strategic spots on the planet might do something? I dunno... obviously I'm shooting from the hip, I just can't believe that there is nothing we could ever do to try and slow/stop a warming earth, regardless of the causes of it. If it IS naturally occuring, and its going to keep rising... wouldn't we face possible annihlation/extinction? Shouldn't that be motivation enough to figure something out?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

One idiotic idea off the top of my head is to send a giant disc into space (like huge) and manipulate its position to allow for more/less light/heat to hit certain areas of the earth (like maybe the polar caps?). Probably dumb and unworkable (I assume...), but I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility to think we could affect global temperature, up or down.

Actualy, I was thinking along the same line myself. I didn't think of the space idea though, your idea could work. You don't really NEED a masive disc hovering above the planet, you push it far enough away and it really does not need to be that big at all. The farther away from the planet it is, the larger the shadow it will cast.

Good idea man, that may have legs.

**edit**nm, see you brought the distance thing up already.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Wind turbines are another interesting issue. Aside from the red herring about there being no power line from the turbine directly to the C-Train, it is obvious wind is a supplementary source of power only. The grid can only sustain 10% to 20% of total capacity coming from wind with current technology. Further, wind IS expensive relative to coal - likely cheaper than gas though. Wind costs about $2000/kW in capital, which works out to about $70 to $80/MWh in lifetime cost of power (coal is closer to $60). However, this is true only if you say GHG and other pollution is free - if you charge coal plants for pollution, wind very well could be cheaper from a societal perspective.

But that's a subsidy!! Didn't you click the link?!?!?!

Gas turbines may be more expensive up front, and are tied to the price of natural gas to run, but the reason they're so popular in Alberta is the fact you can fire one up virtually at the drop of a hat and feed power into the grid. Follow the sytem marginal price (SMP) on the link I posted, and when the price of power spikes, have a look at wat the gas generators in the province do.....all of a suddden they start up. Waaaay more money to be made on those things than gambling on the unpredictibility of mother nature.

I agree 1000% though. There needs to be incentive to build clean power, because if I was running a public power company I'm more concerned with my bottom dollar, not the environment. If my $20 million dollar investment can be paid out in 2 years vs 6.......

We (our company) was doing it to offset emmisions that we were creating, and also because we could see some type of incentive in the future (government credits, tax credits, etc) to build a wind farm. Unfortunately those incentives have been a loooooong time coming. Till then we're running cattle on the land, creating emmisions of a different sort.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Actualy, I was thinking along the same line myself. I didn't think of the space idea though, your idea could work. You don't really NEED a masive disc hovering above the planet, you push it far enough away and it really does not need to be that big at all. The farther away from the planet it is, the larger the shadow it will cast.

Good idea man, that may have legs.

**edit**nm, see you brought the distance thing up already.

*Runs to the patent office*

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I clicked the link, and nowhere did it state where the information was being attained. That was my question. Will a bank finance a 20 million dollar investment based on data found on a website? I highly doubt it. Maybe I'm wrong on that one...but we couldn't get financing on 2 YEARS of real time data.

So what exactly is your website dismissing? The viability? How much more do I need to explain this to you? Windmills cost money. To pay back your up front cost you need to make money. This can be done in one of a few different ways.

• high commodity prices (such as Alberta)
• consistent wind
• subsidies (Government, or business)

As for your "private firms in a regulated industry"....are you referring to the Sunbridge/ Cypress project? The one that is partially owned by Suncor? Last I heard the government was setting up a "Green Exchange" where companies that had high emissions (Such as Suncor) could offset that with credits generated by things like windpower. Hence....a subsidy.

Wow, what an irrelevant post!

I believe you've said the same thing three times, and every time I've responded to it. To say that wind power will only work in those three situations, denying that these hypothetical situations do not exclude ANY situation, is completely irrelevant.

Of corse you are going to need wind, thanks for stating the complete obvious, but you don't NEED subsidies or deregulation to realize wind farms - I am not even sure if you understand that you are saying nothing here... of corse it is either going to be government regulated or not. Wind farms DO turn a profit, regardless if whatever hypothetical bank or 2 years research you've done. To dismiss the whole concept based on one bank decision is ludacris.

Again, I can't make you click the link, but a lot, if not all, of your questions would be answered because you don't seem to be listening to me. It's not a website that collects the data, this website tells you about the RETScreen. You take a report that takes into account NASA wind surveillance, numerous other agencies and governments and it will be able to determine how much average winds are collected per day, week, hour whatever or how much profit you will make in a day, week, hour, whatever, or how long it will take to get your original investment back etc. The point is there are plenty, plenty places all around the world where wind farms are or would be incredibly financially beneficial. Regardless of what kind of government is in place or if it is a private investment.

Yes the Suncor/Cypress project. It has been running for years already and I have no idea about this green exchange, but they did not go into the venture with government subsidies. When you say offset with credits, are we talking about carbon trading credits? Then, that's a far stretch for government funding as the cost is enormous to start these farms, but the financial payoff can be equally as great.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wow, what an irrelevant post!

let us know when you come up with something accurate or relevant. ok?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Thanks for the update einstein. The problem with people like you is that your simply ignorant.

I know a little about wind, I've done economics on building wind farms in Southern Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia ... I don't care what your silly report says, I KNOW they are cost prohibative. I Understand that wind is free, but go out and do a little research on how much turbines cost, how much they are to maintain and how long a lead time you need to order them. ... and oh by the way the cost of a 'back up plan' when it is not windy.

If it was such a great deal, why aren't they all over the place ... does your little report explain that?

Please do society a favor and NEVER provide your insight about anything to anyone.

Please do society a favor and post something that actually has some kind of backing, not just "I know a little bit about wind, but I have no idea what I'm talking about"

If you did "economics on wind farms" you would've known about the RETScreen, which is what I had to do a presentation on at the UN so I know a little bit about wind farms myself. If you've never heard of it, you didn't do "economics on wind farms", or it was done by the Frasier Institute. And you can tell by the lack of facts in your posts.

Windfarms aren't all over the place because there isn't enough wind all over the place to generate the turbines... seems pretty obvious to me. But the places where there are wind-farms, ARE profitable, and there are programs in place to ensure that they will be profitable before the onset.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

let us know when you come up with something accurate or relevant. ok?

Yeah, and let us know when you actually post something that makes sense...

I think we'll be waiting a while.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lurch, your missing my point.

Who cares if it doubles, increases by a smaller or larger amount. My point is that most people like GHG reductions until it means something material to them. Just human nature.

As for BP reducing GHG emissions, I doubt you know exactly how that math worked, and probably only a dozen or so folks at BP do, but I do know they have removed themselves from assets over the years in Canada, that's a good way to reduce GHG's. I do know that the country and province as a whole had absolutly no hope of acheiving anything close to what Kyoto called for. And if we did get to Kyoto levels, it would only be though a massive reduction in production ... then $2.00 gasoline might made alot of sense.

Why would it skyrocket to $2.00/l? That doesn't make any sense economically? I would like to know where you came up with that figure, because I think we're all getting a little sick of you posting your opinions that have no basis in reality.

[Flames in 07]

I'm not going to give you backing of our wind projects because talking about confidential work on a bb is a CLM.

To say that the projects in place are profitable now is a laugh. Stick to your gov't work, the real world doesn't have a place for you. Some of them are marginal, most existing ones will recover thier money in a generation but are inferior to other alternatives in each region. Further, there aren't many projects out there and they provide a tiny sliver of what society demands.

So even if you were right and what is built now is profitable, I suppose the same logic would say that everything else is not profitable ... so a small fraction of demand is covered off by wind. Goes back to my orginal point that wind and solar are not the answer.

At least not today.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I'm not going to give you backing of our wind projects because talking about confidential work on a bb is a CLM.

Ha ha ha, you could've just said: "I really have no proof of what I'm saying, and I think you can tell by my posts" - and we can.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

To say that the projects in place are profitable now is a laugh. Stick to your gov't work, the real world doesn't have a place for you. Some of them are marginal, most existing ones will recover thier money in a generation but are inferior to other alternatives in each region. Further, there aren't many projects out there and they provide a tiny sliver of what society demands.

Again, if you did some actual research and learned some facts, you probably would be singing a different tune - or at least wouldn't appear so ignorant.

Ha ha ha, yeah, unfortunately I am the one in the real world and you're the one relying on your misinformed/not-informed, not based in reality opinions. Read a book! I'm still waiting for a shread of proof of anything you're saying - hey opinions are great, truth and reality are better.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

So even if you were right and what is built now is profitable, I suppose the same logic would say that everything else is not profitable ... so a small fraction of demand is covered off by wind. Goes back to my orginal point that wind and solar are not the answer.

At least not today.

That is the most construed logic I have ever seen! Just because one way is profitable, no other way is profitable?!?!? Please, stop, my sides are starting to hurt!!!!

So, here's your first lesson in reality: Oil (which is formed from fossil fuels) is non-renewable, meaning once it's gone, we can not produce any more. It can not be regenerated and doesn't "grow back" once it has been obtained. Thus, logically, oil will run out. You can not debate this fact, regardless of if it runs out tomorrow or in 100 years, the world does not, can not, have an endless supply of fossil fuels. Therefor we need to start thinking about alternative fuel sources.

Are you with me so far?

So, we have proved that energy can be harnessed from wind and the sun. Therefor it makes sense to use that energy to replace oil. The sooner we have this kind of infrastructure in place, the less of an impact on the economy and the environment, when the oil is depleted.

So, if sun or wind is not the answer, I would love to hear what you think the answer is, and hopefully it doesn't involve harnessing stars in far-out galaxies and sending them through a warmhole in the middle of the Earth.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Ha ha ha, you could've just said: "I really have no proof of what I'm saying, and I think you can tell by my posts" - and we can.



Again, if you did some actual research and learned some facts, you probably would be singing a different tune - or at least wouldn't appear so ignorant.

Ha ha ha, yeah, unfortunately I am the one in the real world and you're the one relying on your misinformed/not-informed, not based in reality opinions. Read a book! I'm still waiting for a shread of proof of anything you're saying - hey opinions are great, truth and reality are better.



That is the most construed logic I have ever seen! Just because one way is profitable, no other way is profitable?!?!? Please, stop, my sides are starting to hurt!!!!

So, here's your first lesson in reality: Oil (which is formed from fossil fuels) is non-renewable, meaning once it's gone, we can not produce any more. It can not be regenerated and doesn't "grow back" once it has been obtained. Thus, logically, oil will run out. You can not debate this fact, regardless of if it runs out tomorrow or in 100 years, the world does not, can not, have an endless supply of fossil fuels. Therefor we need to start thinking about alternative fuel sources.

Are you with me so far?

So, we have proved that energy can be harnessed from wind and the sun. Therefor it makes sense to use that energy to replace oil. The sooner we have this kind of infrastructure in place, the less of an impact on the economy and the environment, when the oil is depleted.

So, if sun or wind is not the answer, I would love to hear what you think the answer is, and hopefully it doesn't involve harnessing stars in far-out galaxies and sending them through a warmhole in the middle of the Earth.

Right, so I talk about what company I work for just to prove to you I've worked with wind. Right.

My point about profitability is that people will do what's profitable, and nobody is really into wind in any kind of way, there are a sprinkling of projects here and there, but mostly a PR motive, not a profit motive. You said people must find it profitable cause projects exist ... I'm saying their aren't many so many others can't find the profitability. Maybe not something you can understand, just get someone from the real world to help you out with that.

I get that fossil fuels are non-renewable, I get we have a problem, my point from the very start was not anti - green, as you so judged.
9By the way, is putting words in other peoples mouth a rare occurance or do you do that on a regular basis with people ... only way you can win an arguement in your mind I suppose.) But that a solution will be hard ... wind is very localized and still not proving to be useful yet, solar is not economic by a mile so then what? as we take away, or tax fossil fuel consumption even more, or development projects; prices will go up, and the masses won't have it. Simple as that.

BTW, there is more than 100 years of fossil fuels around ... again something someone from the real world may be able to help you out with.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wow, what an irrelevant post!

I guess if you call "real life" vs "something I pulled off the internet" irrelevant....

I believe you've said the same thing three times, and every time I've responded to it. To say that wind power will only work in those three situations, denying that these hypothetical situations do not exclude ANY situation, is completely irrelevant.

I had to say it 3 times because the first 2 times you didn't get it. Apparently you still don't.

Of corse you are going to need wind, thanks for stating the complete obvious, but you don't NEED subsidies or deregulation to realize wind farms -

Sure. If you're in the business of losing money I guess. As I also stated in my post, you don't NEED a subsidy. You don't NEED deregulation.You don't NEED massive amounts of wind. What you NEED is ONE of the THREE.

I am not even sure if you understand that you are saying nothing here... of corse it is either going to be government regulated or not. Wind farms DO turn a profit, regardless if whatever hypothetical bank or 2 years research you've done. To dismiss the whole concept based on one bank decision is ludacris.

Do I really need to go over this again? My point was that it's a hell of a lot harder putting up a wind farm than simply strolling into the bank, loaded with nothing but information you pulled off a website. If you think otherwise......well, have at 'er. You must be smarter than the rest of us who haven't quite figured out cost benefit accounting yet.

Again, I can't make you click the link, but a lot, if not all, of your questions would be answered because you don't seem to be listening to me. It's not a website that collects the data, this website tells you about the RETScreen.

WHERE DOES THE DATA COME FROM? That was my question! I clicked the efffin link, nd nowhere on the website does it say where the data is collected from. Is there test towers in every gully in Sierra Leone? Is there ultra top secret wind monitoring data in outer space? My guess would be that it's some type of computer model that will give you an idea where high winds may be found, but as far as giving you an exact location for a tower (which the banks people in the real world deal with will ask for) you'd be SOL.

The point is there are plenty, plenty places all around the world where wind farms are or would be incredibly financially beneficial. Regardless of what kind of government is in place or if it is a private investment.

Jesus. This is what I said. It's viable when you have one of the 3 scenarios I've been reiterating to you. Nowhere did I say you HAD TO HAVE deregulation. Nor did I say it HAD TO BE private capital. I gave you 3 ESSENTIAL ingredients for a wind farm, ONE of which you HAD TO HAVE. Clear on that?

Yes the Suncor/Cypress project. It has been running for years already and I have no idea about this green exchange, but they did not go into the venture with government subsidies. When you say offset with credits, are we talking about carbon trading credits? Then, that's a far stretch for government funding as the cost is enormous to start these farms, but the financial payoff can be equally as great.

No, I'm not talking about carbon trading. Even if I was, I didn't say it was a "government" subsidy. There are other types of subsidies, whether direct or indirect, which fall into that category. It seems to me you're skimming my posts and not reading them, or reading them and taking out poor amounts of info. Let me explain in a hypothetical situation:

Dirty emmision guy: We generated a bunch of emissions
Govt: You're going to get fined
DEG:What can I do
G: offset them
DEG :how?
DEG: build a wind farm
DEG: done

That, my friend, is a subsidy, or incentive. DEG is subsidizing their emmissions with green credits put forward by the government. It's an incentive to build!

Edit: for clarity. I'm going to list Tron's 3 must haves for wind gen (1 one which you're going to need)

1: High commodity prices
2: high amounts of consistent wind
3: subsidies and incentives

Clear now?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

as we take away, or tax fossil fuel consumption even more, or development projects; prices will go up, and the masses won't have it. Simple as that.

YOu keep saying the price will go up. Why does it have to? You don't have to take away anything and you don't have to tax anything.

People can use less fossil fuels. It is not difficult. It won't drive up the price and won't cost them any extra. In the end, they'll actually save money. I don't understand where you get the notion that using less gasoline will double the price of it.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

YOu keep saying the price will go up. Why does it have to? You don't have to take away anything and you don't have to tax anything.

People can use less fossil fuels. It is not difficult. It won't drive up the price and won't cost them any extra. In the end, they'll actually save money. I don't understand where you get the notion that using less gasoline will double the price of it.

Rouge, a couple things.

Kyoto was all about tax ... in the media it was represented as a way to reduce emissions. For us that's true, but for the planet it was not. The main implication to us was to pay an emissions tax. Many ideas know revolve around taxing things like oil sands projects because of their emissions. Well those taxes are ultimately paid by the end user. As well, if companies are not incented to grow and grow, supply will decrease ... another reason for price to go up.

Lastly, this whole conversation is kind of irrelevant. Yes we can all use less, drive less, drive smaller, turn off the lights, but unfortunately when you look at what others, namely developing countries, India and China are doing and how much GHG's they plan to burn through it makes these small changes noble, but irrelevant.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I had to say it 3 times because the first 2 times you didn't get it. Apparently you still don't.

I actually also pointed out in this thread that you said 'deregulated market with high commodity prices'. Its the caveat at the end that sort of makes the statement... it seems that it is being continually ignored.

[Lurch]

Kyoto was all about tax ... in the media it was represented as a way to reduce emissions. For us that's true, but for the planet it was not. The main implication to us was to pay an emissions tax. Many ideas know revolve around taxing things like oil sands projects because of their emissions. Well those taxes are ultimately paid by the end user. As well, if companies are not incented to grow and grow, supply will decrease ... another reason for price to go up.

Where did you get this idea? If you reduce emissions physically, there is no tax. If it is cheaper to buy the credits, you buy the credits. Kyoto basically set a cost of doing nothing, something which currently does not exist. It is possible for many companies, industries, etc to reduce emissions via better infrastructure/technology in a cost free manner - not universally true, but nobody really knows the extent to which "free pollution" is creating inefficient behaviour. As I've stated earlier, I've seen many examples where emissions could be reduced at a net savings - sometimes implemented, sometimes not. With a cost tied to doing nothing, the decision is much clearer and does not necessarily add anything to long-run cost.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Sure. If you're in the business of losing money I guess. As I also stated in my post, you don't NEED a subsidy. You don't NEED deregulation.You don't NEED massive amounts of wind. What you NEED is ONE of the THREE.

The worst part is that it makes no sense!!!!!! You're telling me that you need one of the those three. What if there is no wind? It wouldn't matter if there was government subsidies or not, there goes your theory! You can pretty much bet on high commodity prices, and you can pretty much bet that there will be either a regulated or deregulated market, so I guess you can also add these to your theory:

4: People, you're going to need people to use the energy
5: Air, so that people can breath
6: A football helmet filled with cottage cheese and a picture of Bea Arthur naked

I don't know if you're just trying to state the plainly obvious, or if you really think those are the only factors that come into play, but I can assure you that whatever steps your company that did the research for the wind farm took, they obviously weren't the right one as there are thousands of wind turbines around the world as you would have discovered by THE LINK I GAVE YOU, not just some random ramblings I wrote.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Do I really need to go over this again?

No, you definately do not. It was irrelevant the first time, and it is still irrelevant the fifth time.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

My point was that it's a hell of a lot harder putting up a wind farm than simply strolling into the bank, loaded with nothing but information you pulled off a website. If you think otherwise......well, have at 'er. You must be smarter than the rest of us who haven't quite figured out cost benefit accounting yet.

Click on the link. Just check it out, maybe you'll understand what I'm trying to say here. It's not a website, that's ludacris. It's a program that will calculate if a wind farm will be profitable or not, what the wind speeds are, how long it will take to return your investment. I am not going to comment on this again, I can't reiterate that there are hundreds of places in the world that there are windfarms, that are profitable and there are hundreds more that could be profitable. Maybe it's difficult to get funding from a bank to finance a wind farm, whoop a de doo, but there is proof that it CAN be profitable REGARDLESS of your one out of three obvious scenerios.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

WHERE DOES THE DATA COME FROM? That was my question! I clicked the efffin link, nd nowhere on the website does it say where the data is collected from. Is there test towers in every gully in Sierra Leone? Is there ultra top secret wind monitoring data in outer space? My guess would be that it's some type of computer model that will give you an idea where high winds may be found, but as far as giving you an exact location for a tower (which the banks people in the real world deal with will ask for) you'd be SOL.

Yep, pretty high-tec stuff. It's already been updated a few times, translated into 21 languages. The data comes from NASA, national governments, universities, organizations etc. You can pick anywhere on the planet and it will be able to pin point to the exact degree of longitude and latitude what the forecast will be. Click on the link.

Click on the link.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Jesus. This is what I said. It's viable when you have one of the 3 scenarios I've been reiterating to you. Nowhere did I say you HAD TO HAVE deregulation. Nor did I say it HAD TO BE private capital. I gave you 3 ESSENTIAL ingredients for a wind farm, ONE of which you HAD TO HAVE. Clear on that?

Clear as mud. If all three are ESSENTIAL why do you only have to HAVE ONE?!?!? I know it's pretty far into the debate and you can't go back on what you've been trying to relay, but duh. OF CORSE you are going to need wind, please quote me where I said wind was not needed in a wind farm. And yeah, having either government subsidies or a deregulated industry are necessary too

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

No, I'm not talking about carbon trading. Even if I was, I didn't say it was a "government" subsidy. There are other types of subsidies, whether direct or indirect, which fall into that category. It seems to me you're skimming my posts and not reading them, or reading them and taking out poor amounts of info. Let me explain in a hypothetical situation:

Dirty emmision guy: We generated a bunch of emissions
Govt: You're going to get fined
DEG:What can I do
G: offset them
DEG :how?
DEG: build a wind farm
DEG: done

That, my friend, is a subsidy, or incentive. DEG is subsidizing their emmissions with green credits put forward by the government. It's an incentive to build!

Edit: for clarity. I'm going to list Tron's 3 must haves for wind gen (1 one which you're going to need)

1: High commodity prices
2: high amounts of consistent wind
3: subsidies and incentives

Clear now?

What country are you from? Do they speak english in What?

Say those one more time mother ****er, I dare you, I double dare you, say that one more time.

If I see those three scenerios one more time, I am going to puke.

I can't deal with people who debate the obvious just to debate. I get it, you've possibly worked in this industry and you know a little bit about it. Hoo rah! But still, is it necessary to debate on points that are pretty much given? To say that wind-farms are not profitable because you couldn't get a bank loan to finance a wind-farm is crazy. Click the link.

Click the link.

I am going to throw out the Pembina Institute, clearly operating wind-farms not because of government subsidies, a deregulated industry or because of wind - but rather for cleaner energies. There goes your theory, yet again.