08-24-2012, 04:12 PM
|
#41
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Edmonton
|
I am not really trying to debate green energy but I thought I read that it was in trouble in Germany because the government has pulled some subsidies.
That seems to be the case in Ontario as well. It was going strong until the government changed the guaranteed price for solar and wind projects.
If we really want to see a reduction in electricity I think they need to move electricity towards a variable rate product for delivery. Charge something like 20 c/kwh all in with no extra delivery fees. That way if I reduce my use by 20% I will save 20%. Right now we have a diminishing returns setup whereby the first kwh that you save cuts your bill by the highest percentage but every incremental increase is a lower percentage saved. I would be happy to spend money on reducing my electricity consumption but 75% of the bill is fixed fees so it seems like a losing battle.
|
|
|
|
08-25-2012, 08:38 AM
|
#42
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Oh and some more background.
And during the first six months of 2012, 165 power generators came on line with a total capacity of 8,098 megawatts (MW), but only one was a coal-fired plant. At 800 MW, it’s less than 10% of total capacity added. The remaining 90% were gas-fired generators and renewables, including solar and landfill gas, which tend to be small—hence the large number of generators.
Coal plants are shut down at a stunning pace. In 2012, a total of 9 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity will be retired, the largest one-year exodus in the history of the US! In 2015, a new record: 10 GW. Between 2012 and 2016, 175 coal-fired generators with a total capacity of 27 GW will get axed—8.5% of the total coal-fired capacity.
http://www.businessinsider.com/natur...e-cliff-2012-8 |
Hope that trend doesn't continue.. How much will electricity prices increase if the supply decreases by 1 GW per year? Also, how many more plants or generating stations will need to be put online to replace 27 GW if it takes 165 to create 8 GW?
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2012, 10:52 AM
|
#43
|
|
Had an idea!
|
Wouldn't wind, solar, hydro and other renewable projects, nevermind nuclear....make up for the lost capacity?
|
|
|
|
|
08-25-2012, 03:32 PM
|
#44
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calculoso
Hope that trend doesn't continue.. How much will electricity prices increase if the supply decreases by 1 GW per year? Also, how many more plants or generating stations will need to be put online to replace 27 GW if it takes 165 to create 8 GW?
|
The added capacity was for the first six months alone. The removed capacity is for one year total. Not the same timeframe.
|
|
|
|
|
08-26-2012, 10:27 PM
|
#45
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tron_fdc
And no, they don't kill a significant amount of birds. About 1/100 of the amount of birds that get killed flying into windows IIRC.
|
I believe I read somewhere that the Pincher Creek turbines have been especially hard on the bat population out there though.
|
|
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 04:23 PM
|
#46
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
The added capacity was for the first six months alone. The removed capacity is for one year total. Not the same timeframe.
|
Missed that. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2012, 03:03 PM
|
#47
|
|
Had an idea!
|
A Fracking Good Story
Quote:
Weather conditions around the world this summer have provided ample fodder for the global warming debate. Droughts and heat waves are a harbinger of our future, carbon cuts are needed now more than ever, and yet meaningful policies have not been enacted.
But, beyond this well-trodden battlefield, something amazing has happened: Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.
The cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45 percent less carbon per energy unit. The U.S. used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20 percent from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: In April of this year, coal’s share in power generation plummeted to just 32 percent, on par with gas.
America’s rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.
The reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the U.S. population over the past two decades. Indeed, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped about 20 percent per capita, and are now at their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower left the White House in 1961.
David Victor, an energy expert at UC-San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced U.S. emissions by 400 to 500 megatons CO2 per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.
It is tempting to believe that renewable energy sources are responsible for emissions reductions, but the numbers clearly say otherwise. Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO2 per year, America’s 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-10th the amount that natural gas does. Biofuels reduce emissions by only 10 megatons, and solar panels by a paltry three megatons.
This flies in the face of conventional thinking, which continues to claim that mandating carbon reductions—through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax—is the only way to combat climate change.
But, based on Europe’s experience, such policies are precisely the wrong way to address global warming. Since 1990, the EU has heavily subsidized solar and wind energy at a cost of more than $20 billion annually. Yet its per capita CO2 emissions have fallen by less than half of the reduction achieved in the U.S.—even in percentage terms, the U.S. is now doing better.
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...20_years_.html
I wonder what the NDP has to say about this.
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2012, 03:46 PM
|
#48
|
|
First Line Centre
|
It would be nice if wind and solar energy was anything more than a PC option to generating power. Right now however it's just not viable.
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2012, 04:03 PM
|
#49
|
|
Often Thinks About Pickles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Okotoks
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coys1882
It would be nice if wind and solar energy was anything more than a PC option to generating power. Right now however it's just not viable.
|
Its just not economically feasible on a wide scale basis. There are better options out there... that work.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to TurnedTheCorner For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
09-15-2012, 09:50 PM
|
#51
|
|
Had an idea!
|
Yeah, I'll report it so the admins can merge the threads.
|
|
|
|
|
09-16-2012, 10:09 PM
|
#53
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
|
Coal mining releases methane, or "coal gas".
Burning natural gas is an efficient method of combustion, with practically zero methane emissions. The amount of methane emissions is negligible.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
09-17-2012, 11:08 AM
|
#54
|
|
My face is a bum!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
|
Ah you hippies. You get so upset when hydrocarbons are actually doing some good. It's cute 
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
09-17-2012, 01:29 PM
|
#55
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Yeah there is a lot of money and industry to be built around green energy, and already Canada and the US are falling way behind.
Like the guy who made carbon nation says, he doesn't care what people believe in regards to global warming, just wants the focus to move from arguing about it to cashing in on the future gold mine of green energy and innovations/technology stemming from it.
Just look at Germany, like usual they are cashing in and leading the way. Damn Germans!
|
http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...dy_-_FINAL.pdf (2009)
... and this ...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-852815.html (last month)
... are very good indicators that Germany has royally screwed itself and is just now seeing exactly how royally. There are a whole slew of "unintended consequences" now rearing their reads in Germany thanks to wholesale gov't meddling in the energy sector.
__________________
zk
|
|
|
|
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 09:53 AM.
|
|
