11-02-2023, 06:14 AM
|
#15801
|
 Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
This is the angle now? Stole money from the CPP?
Do UCP sycophants just shart everything they think of on a whim and shout from the rooftops about it? They must love their own sharts because every fresh one seems like something they have to tell everyone else who make their bowel movements like normal people.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 06:19 AM
|
#15802
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
This is the angle now? Stole money from the CPP?
Do UCP sycophants just shart everything they think of on a whim and shout from the rooftops about it? They must love their own sharts because every fresh one seems like something they have to tell everyone else who make their bowel movements like normal people.
|
If you think Freelands concerns are for the people of Alberta you are more deluded than I thought.
Let’s see the numbers.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1719799908553593088
Last edited by Yoho; 11-02-2023 at 06:22 AM.
|
|
|
11-02-2023, 06:25 AM
|
#15803
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
I’ll be very interested in seeing the numbers Freeland gives and if the liberals haven’t already stolen from CPP.
|
Dumb post is dumb
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 06:36 AM
|
#15804
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
This is the angle now? Stole money from the CPP?
Do UCP sycophants just shart everything they think of on a whim and shout from the rooftops about it? They must love their own sharts because every fresh one seems like something they have to tell everyone else who make their bowel movements like normal people.
|
It makes sense when you remember that it’s always projection.
They’d steal from the pension fund just like the Alberta government gutted the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, so they assume the federal government must steal from CPP, too.
|
|
|
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
|
BowRiverBruinsRule,
calgarybornnraised,
Canadianman,
direwolf,
Duruss,
firebug,
FlameOn,
Fuzz,
GioforPM,
HitterD,
Izzle,
Johnny Makarov,
Major Major,
MoneyGuy,
PsYcNeT,
puffnstuff,
redflamesfan08,
topfiverecords,
Wormius
|
11-02-2023, 06:49 AM
|
#15805
|
 Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Then the toadeater links to an article where Freeland raises the concern about withdrawing funds from a national pension for all Canadians, and somehow derives that the Liberals are stealing money out of the CPP.
You can't make this Orange Julius up.
|
|
|
11-02-2023, 06:55 AM
|
#15806
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
I’ll be very interested in seeing the numbers Freeland gives and if the liberals haven’t already stolen from CPP.
|
First of all, the stealing from CPP or even accusing the UCP of running the potential APP is just plain stupid. It’s a complete non-starter in either case and I wish people (on both sides) would stop with that line of thought.
But second, good luck getting a number. It’s not a negotiation. It’s not a case of Alberta says this insane number, Feds say this, so we’ll split the difference. Read the act.
|
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 07:07 AM
|
#15807
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
Hold on, Jacks is trying to tell us UCP voters aren't dumb. Yoho isn't going a good job of convincing us of this.
I really would like to know, since Jacks is admitting to this, from a UCP voter, if they regret voting that way? Are they just OK being lied to, or did they see through the lies and vote UCP anyway, for reasons...what reasons could those be that allow you to be OK with being lied to?
|
|
|
11-02-2023, 07:45 AM
|
#15808
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
First of all, the stealing from CPP or even accusing the UCP of running the potential APP is just plain stupid. It’s a complete non-starter in either case and I wish people (on both sides) would stop with that line of thought.
But second, good luck getting a number. It’s not a negotiation. It’s not a case of Alberta says this insane number, Feds say this, so we’ll split the difference. Read the act.
|
Time will tell, it’s odd the Liberals are scrambling so much on this.
|
|
|
11-02-2023, 07:47 AM
|
#15809
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Then the toadeater links to an article where Freeland raises the concern about withdrawing funds from a national pension for all Canadians, and somehow derives that the Liberals are stealing money out of the CPP.
You can't make this Orange Julius up.
|
Such a Rock solid pension that if one Province (who is over contributing) pulls out it will collapse.
Let’s see the numbers, shouldn’t be that tough of a question. Show me the $.
Last edited by Yoho; 11-02-2023 at 07:54 AM.
|
|
|
11-02-2023, 07:54 AM
|
#15810
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
Man do I wish their was a knowledge test before people were permitted to vote. Would solve so many problems.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 08:01 AM
|
#15811
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
This is the angle now? Stole money from the CPP?
Do UCP sycophants just shart everything they think of on a whim and shout from the rooftops about it? They must love their own sharts because every fresh one seems like something they have to tell everyone else who make their bowel movements like normal people.
|
Well, Thereon Fleury tweeted this notion out. And we all know how smart and sane he is.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to chedder For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 08:14 AM
|
#15812
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
Such a Rock solid pension that if one Province (who is over contributing) pulls out it will collapse.
Let’s see the numbers, shouldn’t be that tough of a question. Show me the $.
|
OMG. One province is not over overcontributing. IT IS THE SAME FOR EVERY Canadian. But we know you don't every look do anything except barf out the next UCP propaganda piece
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 08:30 AM
|
#15813
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
Such a Rock solid pension that if one Province (who is over contributing) pulls out it will collapse.
Let’s see the numbers, shouldn’t be that tough of a question. Show me the $.
|
You posted that on Twitter last night and I was so close to engaging, but just couldn't be bothered. Honestly, the issue (to me) is that we have a bunch of people opining on pensions and they have no idea what they're talking about. That goes for both sides and it's not just a shot at the UCP.
Literally no one is "over-contributing". You contribute to the pension based on your income and the benefit you will receive is commensurate with those contributions. People who contribute less through their working career receive lesser benefits. That has a number of implications.
In the case of Alberta, with a younger, higher earning population, it means that we contribute more overall and when we retire we get higher benefits. For the APP, those higher benefits that we're owed in the future are higher obligations than what would be left for the CPP (if you looked at the numbers on a provincial basis).
But critically what seems to be ignored here, is there is no free lunch. You can both cut the costs paid by people and increase the benefit. You can play with the numbers so that it looks like there is extra money, but it doesn't mean that there is. For example (and this is part of what we're seeing in the UCP plan), a properly managed pension is going to have a cushion which helps alleviate stress on the plan in times of market turmoil or things like that. The UCP is trying to push through a plan to factor that cushion in as evidence that the plan doesn't need as much funding, because it can earn more than needed and things are fine. You don't need to be a genius to see that this is fraught with problems. Basically, as long as "things are fine", then this works. But if you run into future difficulties (and spoiler alert, you definitely will experience dozens of recessions, bear markets and other drawdowns if you manage money in perpetuity like a pension plan!), you have problems.
tldr; the UCP is playing games with the numbers.
|
|
|
The Following 27 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
aaronck,
Ashartus,
BeltlineFan,
Bill Bumface,
BowRiverBruinsRule,
calgarybornnraised,
CliffFletcher,
darockwilder,
direwolf,
firebug,
FlameOn,
flamesfever,
Fuzz,
Geraldsh,
HitterD,
Joborule,
Major Major,
Mazrim,
MoneyGuy,
Mr.Coffee,
powderjunkie,
redflamesfan08,
redforever,
Street Pharmacist,
TheIronMaiden,
TopChed,
Torture
|
11-02-2023, 08:31 AM
|
#15814
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
Such a Rock solid pension that if one Province (who is over contributing) pulls out it will collapse.
Let’s see the numbers, shouldn’t be that tough of a question. Show me the $.
|
I suspect if they showed you the numbers, you would not believe them anyways unless it supported what you already believe.
|
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Red Potato Standing By For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 08:48 AM
|
#15815
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
|
Sorry, just catching up here. Apologies for the repeats to those who have followed along over the past couple months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
Full credit to Danielle Smith on content here. She was spot on with everything she said. Nuclear can’t get built in time, and batteries are merely a cute solution to manage hourly and mayyyyyybe daily volatility. They aren’t a solution for the 2 week long cold fronts in the winter where the wind doesn’t blow much and the sun isn’t up. It’s so frustrating seeing everyone unable to overcome their hatred for her on this one and actually try to understand the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccalus
What makes Alberta so incapable that we can't build a nuclear power plant before 2035 when Ontario Can? Canada has an established Nuclear industry, established regulatory framework and experience in the industry. Even lowely new brunswick has a nuclear plant and was an earlier investor into SMR reactors than Alberta. Just more can't do attitude by our premier on the energy file.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...uild-1.6897701
|
I’m completely team nuclear as the baseload of the future. It is the only non-emitting generation source with high enough energy density to give us a shot at maintaining our standard of living in an environmentally sustainable way. However it is unrealistic to think it can get through stakeholder engagement (NIMBYs will be fun on this one), regulatorily approved, designed, constructed, and commissioned in 11 years. Furthermore, the ideal technology isn’t even there yet. It’s the next generation that that should be available soon which could be the real game changer for this province…ones that generate high enough pressure steam for our in situ oil sands production. Decarbonize all that, create a base industry there, from which you can slowly start bolting on turbines to make non-emitting power. That’s my dream for the province. Start with the high intensity emissions in one of our key economic engines which then creates a springboard for power. Don't start by ****ing with our power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccalus
Most of the delays are regulatory framework related though, something that having creative governments who work together can improve. The federal government wants Alberta to decarbonize the grid, nuclear is a viable way to do that. Work together and get things done. Nuclear is only one option that that can and should be explored.
The global average is well below 15 years for nuclear plant construction.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rs-since-1981/
|
No, it is not the only option that should be explored. Nuclear is a baseload supply. It is not dispatchable. It cannot turn up and down to match renewable supply and consumer demand volatility. Only gas peakers and hydro can do this with high capacity and long duration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tron_fdc
I do agree with her here though. Wind and solar are not 100% reliable and there are going to be times that you need baseload capacity to cover their shortfalls.
So either you improve the provincial interties to accommodate when Alberta needs it (buy power from the USA, BC/Sask), or you turn to nuclear, gas or coal plants. Likely gas because nuclear takes forever to build, and coal won't work for obvious environmental reasons. Gas turbines can be immediately brought on when load is required and they're a lot easier to get built in comparison.
Pretty sure it was Germany that already went through this exercise and learned the hard way that you need to be able to cover baseload when renewables aren't running.
|
Great post, but just to clarify the bolded and echo the above. Nuclear is not a suitable backup for variable renewables. It is a great solution to replace our baseload converted coal plants and combined cycle plants once they’re at the end of their lives though. You're spot on that gas peakers are the only feasible solution we control. Now the ideal is dozens of tie-lines with BC's hydro. Then who cares if we overbuild renewables. When they're pumping way more than we need we export the power to them and pump the water back up hill, then draw it down when renewables aren't producing. Now THAT's a "battery" that can actually provide what we need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Nuclear should absolutely take less than 15 years, and having a reasonable regulatory framework operated by competent governments with a decisive and timely legal system would definitely help with that. Unfortunately that isn't the situation we are in here in Canada (see: pipelines).
I think new nuclear plants at the locations where we used to have coal plants makes a lot of sense for Alberta. It has the potential to provide the low cost base load generation we need to supplement the intermittent renewables.
|
Again, nuclear isn’t something that supplements intermittent renewables. That’s the literal definition of baseload…it’s the base that is always on.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 08:51 AM
|
#15816
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The UCP is trying to push through a plan to factor that cushion in as evidence that the plan doesn't need as much funding, because it can earn more than needed and things are fine.
|
Which is exactly why the UCP can’t be trusted to set up an APP. Judging by the history of the Conservatives in this province, the Heritage Fund, and how the UCP consider the CPP overfunded, an APP will almost certainly be underfunded and neglected in order to ‘put more money in the pockets of average working Albertans.’
At a time when we need to be increasing contributions to universal pension plans, they would reduce contributions and leave those who can’t save for a comfortable pension independently (ie two-thirds of Albertans) up #### creek.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 09:57 AM
|
#15817
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
Again, nuclear isn’t something that supplements intermittent renewables. That’s the literal definition of baseload…it’s the base that is always on.
|
I mean, that's true, but it's also true that having stable baseload power probably allows more renewable construction. As carbon prices increase our current natural gas generation which is providing baseload would switch over time to become peaker plants covering for renewable intermittancy.
Trying to build enough renewables/storage to cover our entire demand isn't likely to work, imo. But if we had nuclear baseload up to the amount of power we use at night that was always on, we could probably get to very low emissions by mostly using renewables and storage for the peak demand periods of the day, maybe with some natural gas on low-wind days and evenings.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 11:12 AM
|
#15818
|
 Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Full credit to Danielle Smith on content here. She was spot on with everything she said. Nuclear can’t get built in time, and batteries are merely a cute solution to manage hourly and mayyyyyybe daily volatility. They aren’t a solution for the 2 week long cold fronts in the winter where the wind doesn’t blow much and the sun isn’t up. It’s so frustrating seeing everyone unable to overcome their hatred for her on this one and actually try to understand the issue.
|
Just for the record, here's what the other person in the exchange had to say about it, whom unfortunately Danielle ignored, talked over, and defaulted to her talking points.
"CBC: What the guy who got into a shouting match with Danielle Smith at a climate conference thinks of the exchange
He wasn't talking about industrial-scale battery storage on the province's power grid, but rather small-scale battery storage in individual homes. As a rooftop solar guy, this is more his wheelhouse.
What I was telling her is that we've been looking at this the wrong way, Power said.
I think she missed the point.
He says it's less expensive than many people realize to install a handful of solar panels and a small amount of battery storage in their homes.
He tends to prefer lead-acid batteries, which are an older technology compared to modern lithium-ion batteries. But, he says, for small-scale residential solar systems the older-style batteries are cheaper to buy up front, have long life cycles when properly maintained, and are nearly fully recyclable (new window) when they reach the end of their life cycle.
Power believes encouraging more widespread adoption of systems like this would help take pressure off the power grid and reduce the need for industrial-scale generation. As a bonus, he said, it provides homeowners with independent reserves of backup electricity for emergency situations.
That alone won't solve all of our energy challenges, Power said, but he felt it was disheartening for the premier to be so dismissive, because he believes long-lasting solutions will take a combination of all sorts of different technologies which, when added up, can make a significant difference."
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-02-2023, 11:15 AM
|
#15819
|
evil of fart
|
JFC, I can't believe how cringey it is the moronic conservatives in Alberta have dragged the rest of Canada into our mess.
|
|
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
|
aaronck,
BeltlineFan,
FlameOn,
Flamezzz,
Fuzz,
Mazrim,
MoneyGuy,
redflamesfan08,
surferguy,
topfiverecords,
Wormius
|
11-02-2023, 11:20 AM
|
#15820
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
JFC, I can't believe how cringey it is the moronic conservatives in Alberta have dragged the rest of Canada into our mess.
|
DrFever: Oh but the rest of Canada could care less about Alberta politics....
hahahahahaha
__________________
Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59 AM.
|
|