Green Tories? Harper Rolls Out Environmental Policy

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Check out this link:

http://www.retscreen.net/

Basically this is state-of-the-art technology that does Canada proud internationally. You can determine if a wind-farm will be profitable anywhere in the world. Including the profit within the first year, how long it would take to pay off the initial investment, how high the winds are etc. It really is quite amazing.

What you are quoting inevitably is one particular place, and would make no sense to apply that everywhere. Plus, how can something like this not make sense unless it is deregulated or heavily government subsidized? So basically it makes sense, everywhere?

I'm a little too tired to get in depth with your link, but I'd be pretty curious to see exactly how the Canadian government is accumulating their data. I HIGHLY doubt a bank (or at least any financial group I've talked to) would finance a project based on anything other than historical wind data, accumulated with anything other than a test tower. When we approached Canadian Business Development about 5 years ago with a purchased piece of land, all the permits and 2 years of historical data showing a profit on the project, they ever so politely said thanks but no thanks.

Not sure what you mean in your last pargraph either....what I'm getting at is that you cannot pay off your initial investment (not just in Aberta but pretty much ANY country/province) without either one (or more) of the following:

• high commodity prices in a de-regulated market
• financial aid (subsidies)
• consistent wind (>35%)

With high prices you can get away with less wind. With more consistent wind you can get away with lower prices. With a government subsidies you can get away with neither the first or the last.

[FireFly]

Excluding the financial and employment issues with wind and solar power, there are two other problems...

First, is the amount of space needed to generate large amounts of power. You have to have vast amounts of land to fill with windmills or solar panels.

Second, and this is only with windmills, is the vibrations they cause and the effects of the vibrations on local wildlife. It's devestating. It's great that it's clean, but you're killing everything in the area by killing off the plant life.

At least that's what I hear. And no, I don't want to research that. It's late and I'm tired. If you don't believe me, you go find facts that say I'm wrong. I'm okay with that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

the problem with green is that people think it's great until they understand what the impacts are.

I understand what the impacts are and I think "green", as you call it, isn't such a bad idea. Better than the alternative, I know that.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If people want to be serious about reducing emissions, there are many problems with each proposed solution.

A laptop, a clothes rack and a smaller car (or better yet a bus pass) would reduce your personal emissions.

Stricter emissions/fuel-economy standards for automobiles are not all that difficult. Nuclear power has been invented.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Coal is dirty as he// but less coal means more fossil fuels ... reserves are hard to find as it is.

Coal is a fossil fuel.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'm a little too tired to get in depth with your link, but I'd be pretty curious to see exactly how the Canadian government is accumulating their data. I HIGHLY doubt a bank (or at least any financial group I've talked to) would finance a project based on anything other than historical wind data, accumulated with anything other than a test tower. When we approached Canadian Business Development about 5 years ago with a purchased piece of land, all the permits and 2 years of historical data showing a profit on the project, they ever so politely said thanks but no thanks.

Not sure what you mean in your last pargraph either....what I'm getting at is that you cannot pay off your initial investment (not just in Aberta but pretty much ANY country/province) without either one (or more) of the following:

• high commodity prices in a de-regulated market
• financial aid (subsidies)
• consistent wind (>35%)

With high prices you can get away with less wind. With more consistent wind you can get away with lower prices. With a government subsidies you can get away with neither the first or the last.

Well, I can't make you click the link, but if you did you would know that this is a huge initiative, in conjunction with NASA et al., available in 21 languages, that is used all around the world, that pretty much dismisses everything you are saying. This is a very realistic, alternative energy source that is already being utilized in countless countries. Why there are windfarms as soon as you cross the Alberta border must be because the wind gets much stronger or deregulation or subsidies - they are funded by private firms in a province that has a regulated energy industry. Imagine that...

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Excluding the financial and employment issues with wind and solar power, there are two other problems...

First, is the amount of space needed to generate large amounts of power. You have to have vast amounts of land to fill with windmills or solar panels.

Second, and this is only with windmills, is the vibrations they cause and the effects of the vibrations on local wildlife. It's devestating. It's great that it's clean, but you're killing everything in the area by killing off the plant life.

At least that's what I hear. And no, I don't want to research that. It's late and I'm tired. If you don't believe me, you go find facts that say I'm wrong. I'm okay with that.

I've never heard anything about that... I have heard about bats getting caught in the turbines though, but if that's why you protest against wind energy, I can imagine how you must feel about the oil sands and the repercussions of the emittance of greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels - and their impacts on wildlife that pale in comparision compared to that of wind farms. I've seen the windmill in downtown Toronto, and there was no vibration and a windfarm in Sask that is in the middle of prairie, with no obvious damage to the surrounding crop.

I don't understand people who use arguments like "windmills are ugly" or "they ruin the surrounding ecosystems" - have you not seen how ugly the oil wells are? Or realize what the consequences are for the drilling of the MacKenzie delta or the oil sands?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Well, I can't make you click the link, but if you did you would know that this is a huge initiative, in conjunction with NASA et al., available in 21 languages, that is used all around the world, that pretty much dismisses everything you are saying. This is a very realistic, alternative energy source that is already being utilized in countless countries. Why there are windfarms as soon as you cross the Alberta border must be because the wind gets much stronger or deregulation or subsidies - they are funded by private firms in a province that has a regulated energy industry. Imagine that...

Uhh.. there are wind farms in Alberta. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are more wind turbines in Alberta than any other province

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I've never heard anything about that... I have heard about bats getting caught in the turbines though, but if that's why you protest against wind energy, I can imagine how you must feel about the oil sands and the repercussions of the emittance of greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels - and their impacts on wildlife that pale in comparision compared to that of wind farms. I've seen the windmill in downtown Toronto, and there was no vibration and a windfarm in Sask that is in the middle of prairie, with no obvious damage to the surrounding crop.

I don't understand people who use arguments like "windmills are ugly" or "they ruin the surrounding ecosystems" - have you not seen how ugly the oil wells are? Or realize what the consequences are for the drilling of the MacKenzie delta or the oil sands?

yeah, I always laugh at people who say wind farms are bad too. They would be arguing about campfires on camping trips too I'm sure.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Well, I can't make you click the link, but if you did you would know that this is a huge initiative, in conjunction with NASA et al., available in 21 languages, that is used all around the world, that pretty much dismisses everything you are saying. This is a very realistic, alternative energy source that is already being utilized in countless countries. Why there are windfarms as soon as you cross the Alberta border must be because the wind gets much stronger or deregulation or subsidies - they are funded by private firms in a province that has a regulated energy industry. Imagine that...

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.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

The problem with people like you is you don't understand or have failed to learn about Climate Change. You think green sucks, but don't understand what the impacts are.

The government of Canada has created a program called the RETscreen, it is a wind-power program that analyzes the costs/benefits/profit of wind power anywhere on the planet. You should at least read a bit about it before talking ignorantly about it. There is nothing expensive or unpracticle [sic] (or rather how we say it in english: impractical) about wind power. Wind power doesn't cost... anything and it's not non-renewable.

I don't even think I am going to respond to anything else in your post... You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about and have never bothered to learn anything about renewable or alternative fuel sources, let alone climate change, CO2 emmissions, greehouse gases etc...

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.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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

Well put.

[Flames in 07]

Rouge, you individually might be ready for the implications, but my point is: go tell the masses, great news we are going to reduce ommissions, btw, gas is now $2.00/l. It won't fly. Like it or not, it simply won't.

[GoinAllTheWay]

If I'm not mistaken, our LRT system is 100% green, running off windturbines from the Crowsnest Pass.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Fact: The earth is on a warming trend
Fact: The warming is faster than anytime within the past 10,000 years
Source:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ations_Rev_png

Fact: Global ice volume is at its lowest level for the last 100,000 years
Debate: To what extent is human activity having an impact on natural cycles?

Wether or not your are an enviromentalist or a realist, our planet is warming up, faster than ever. Our ice is melting and dumping fresh water into a saltwater ocean. That is going to mess with our weather patterns in a big way.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Fact: The earth is on a warming trend
Fact: The warming is faster than anytime within the past 10,000 years
Source:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ations_Rev_png

Fact: Global ice volume is at its lowest level for the last 100,000 years
Debate: To what extent is human activity having an impact on natural cycles?

Wether or not your are an enviromentalist or a realist, our planet is warming up, faster than ever. Our ice is melting and dumping fresh water into a saltwater ocean. That is going to mess with our weather patterns in a big way.

Interesting. I wonder, if this is a naturally ocurring phenomenon, is it in humanity's best interest to just ride it out, or use technology/science/resources to try and keep the planet cooler? Is it right to mess with a (possible) natural temperature rise to keep the planet habitable for ourselves? Or is it best just to hope we can stick it out and just keep going on doing whatever we're doing?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Interesting. I wonder, if this is a naturally ocurring phenomenon, is it in humanity's best interest to just ride it out, or use technology/science/resources to try and keep the planet cooler? Is it right to mess with a (possible) natural temperature rise to keep the planet habitable for ourselves? Or is it best just to hope we can stick it out and just keep going on doing whatever we're doing?

I doubt we would know how to technologically 'mess' with global temperatures.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

If I'm not mistaken, our LRT system is 100% green, running off windturbines from the Crowsnest Pass.

Sort of true. The city signed a contract with Enmax (who they own BTW) saying that they would pay a minimum amount (I think around $0.08/kWh) for power requirements on the C-train. This in turn allows Enmax to finance the entire operation because they have a customer guaranteeing that they will pay a set minimum amount for power. It must be nice to essentially sign a contract with yourself, paid for by your citizens!!! Anyways...

There is no power line that runs from the LRT to Cowley. If there was, the Ctrain would only run when the turbines were turning (I believe the up-time in that area is 38%). It would be kind of hard to explain to commuters that they can't take the LRT to work today because it's not windy enough to turn the generators.

Essentially, all that the contract with themselves did was allow for the financing of the wind farm. They still get their power from the Balancing Pool, the same as everyone else (household and business) in the province.

[Tron_fdc]

Also, if anyone wants to see the day to day grid operations in Alberta they can go to http://www.aeso.ca/index.html They show to-the-minute power prices and generation.

There are also hundreds of articles in there on all kinds of generation for anyone wishing to do a little light reading....

[habernac]

Govt regulations on automobile emissions is an excellent idea. Ride your bikes to work on a regular basis or take the bus.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I doubt we would know how to technologically 'mess' with global temperatures.

You think? I don't know, if we have the technology to increase the earth's temperature (as global warming activists are telling us), I don't think its far-fetched to believe we could reduce it.

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.

[Lurch]

Some responses to points I have seen in this debate, which is one of my very favorite topics.

Rouge, you individually might be ready for the implications, but my point is: go tell the masses, great news we are going to reduce ommissions, btw, gas is now $2.00/l. It won't fly. Like it or not, it simply won't.

Fearmongering. How can you suggest gas will more than double? The fact of the matter is BP, for example, has met Kyoto targets as a company simply by rethinking how it operates. How did a company operating in a competitive market accomplish this if reducing GHG costs double or more? I used to work for a company that helped oil and gas firms reduce energy consumption on site, and we typically had paybacks on our recommendations of 3 to 5 years. Many of these went unused b/c investing in energy efficiency was seen as "risky" by the old school guys in charge. IMO, it is idiocy to suppose that efficiency/green do not go together hand in hand with profit and lower cost.

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.

IMO, the way to address pollution and GHG is with targeted tax and incentive packages, combined with real standards. For example, there is no reason why some TV's should use way more energy than others when they are turned off. Parasitic power consumption, usually of which consumers are not even aware, is a huge power use in North America. Generally, it occurs due to sloppy engineering with no performance benefit for the appliance. Minimum standards could be mandated, saving a huge amount of power, with no impact on consumers whatsoever.