Al Gore slams the tories' new environmental plan!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

For what it is worth, there are very few location in Canada that can justify wind gen. A few spots in S AB, S MB and the east coast can work, but generally at poor returns that don't really attract much attention to investment dollars compared to alternatives.

And you know this how? I'm very curious about this as there are wind energy farms all over the United States, so why would it be different in the United States than in Canada or vice versa?

Not sure what you mean by inexpensive, but you certainly can't be refering to the sunk cost of a turbine.

Compared to the sunk cost of any other energy plant? I don't get your point. Did you not follow and read the link in the last reply?

"A modern wind farm that is located in a good area can generate power for about 3 ½ cents per kilowatt-hour. That compares very favorably with other new forms of generation. For reference, diesel generation costs between 8 and 16 cents per kwh and nuclear power costs between 11 and 15 cents per kwh."

Do you not think that the costs of the wind farm are factored into these costs per kilo-watt-hour?

In general if any of your ideas worked commercially on any kind of real scale, they'd have already happened. Nobody is alergic to money, so if there was a buck to make these ideas would not be found once in a while on chat forums. The trick will be taking some of these nice and cute ideas and turning them into commercial scale operations that actually make an impact.

All of these "nice" and "cute" ideas are already in use in many locations around the world. Many of them are already used in industrial applications to reduce energy costs. Just because they are not yet adopted in North America does not make them poor concepts.

I'm all for ideas and don't really mean to discourage them, but the market can tell you if they work or not.

Yes, the market is always correct and the market is never manipulated.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I don't think that the math is as you suggest it. The enegy loss from an internal combustion engine is quite high, and the process of using it in a high pressure closed system for electricity generation is much more efficient leading to more energy recovery from the burning of the fuel. Consider the efficiency of burning a piece of wood in an open fire pit versus burning it in a closed boiler system. Which one release more of the energy in the wood.

16000... ring a bell? Prove it, or retract it. Balls in your court.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Buy yourself a sense of humor, or are you still all pissy about the Flames boming out so quickly and all us "negative" types having a much better grip on the hockey team as you "positive" folks? Probably still pissy since you went all Shergil on me for pointing out the problems with the team and saying the first round would be a humilating blowout.

If you think I went Shergil on you, you ain't seen nothing yet my friend. I will respect your opinions and perspectives to my dying day, but I do not respect the garbage baggage of pot shots. I can do that too, quite easily. I refrain from it. Hope you choose to as well. It isn't about a sense of humour. it just ain't funny. And certainly not worthy of your calibre of posting.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Is it? I have no idea what prduction costs are for an industrial windmill. I do know that the power generation costs from the windmills are extremely inexpensive, so I think your incorrect on your information.

http://www.douglaspud.org/Environment/WindPower.aspx

The bolded word in your post that was the most important was "anywhere". Speak to that first. As a poster has already indicated, it isn't feasible to stick a windmill up out in the blue and expect results. As for your lack of knowing what production cost are vis-a-vis the ROI, I suggest you look further. Might wake you up a bit.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

(Re:geothermal...Shawnski) I don't know what type of system you are talking about, but that is not geothermal power.

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html#Q1

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html

http://www.montanagreenpower.com/ren...mal/index.html

Lanny, the general concept of geothermal is the norm right now is home/building cooling/heating. General Wiki info here. However, on a larger scale, if THAT is what you are proposing, perhaps you might be surprised to note I have already brought that up in a thread here where I have clearly supported a geothermal concept:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=36499

And I got flak for it... larf...

As for the rest of your misdirections or blatherings, sorry, I am not taking part. You can research the issues of ethanol, and the mercury in the new wave of bulbs as easily as you can post your other links. You would any way. Again, this was all based on a skimming of your posts, and you have failed to rebut anything at all. Wood bats 0..... again.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

France runs on ~ 80% Nuclear Power for its power generation.

If it wasn't for the Stigma as Lanny mentioned of 3 mile island and Chernobyl, it would definately be more widely used. It is easier, cheaper and cleaner than using fossil fuels.

And considering its been 20 years since Chernobyl....don't you think nuclear energy is much safer now?

I don't see any problems in France. Heck, they export electricity.

And to continue with wind power...it costs a million bucks to put up one windmill. The whole country side around here is dotted with them. And its the big companies like Shell putting them up.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Lanny, some of your statements are so far off the rocker it isn't even funny.



Prove that one. As Lurch has already pointed out, your numbers don't jive. Not even close. If my 22 MPG car was electric, would I get 352,000 MPG if that gas was converted to electricity first? Obviously not.


Sorry mate, as much as I don't agree, nor usually appreciate his/her posts (nor myk's), the blowhard that is best suited for wind power is yourself. Keep the rhetoric to a minimum and your posts will be more readable and in turn make more of an impact on the reader.



Nope, not even close. There are very small areas in which a large scale windmill, let alone farm, can be deployed. Consistant high winds from a generally stable direction are paramount to being effective in harvesting that power. The energy cost to construct a windmill is quite high as well. How long before it is "paid off" in green energy (let alone maintaining it.)



Again, total misinformation. Geothermal (of which I am a big supporter) has nothing to do with what you stated. On the contrary, it is the exact opposite. It is like the radiator in your vehicle. When it is cool out, you are warmed by the flow of "heat" from the ground several meters below the soil. But when it is hot out (hello Phoenix), the cool temps under the ground act as an air conditioner with the Earth cooled anti-freeze cycling through the buildings systems.

Lanny, these are just a few that stood out from skimming this thread. For someone that is so high on being analytical of situations like Iggy and the Flames, I would hope you could put more into your posts on this matter. I do value your opinions, but would hope not to see them evolve into a wooden bat vs aluminum bat travesty.

Side updates might include costs of ethanol and mercury in the new bulbs as food for thought.

Bring it, bring it hard. I encourage that. But bring it all man!!! Both sides as complete as possible. The most success I ever enjoyed in my business life was when I knew (and articulated) all sides of a debate, at all times. Answers became apparent so much easier that way.

My 1/10th of a cent... after taxes.

It's a frickin joke with a couple of "posters" in this thread that you single out Lanny for criticism in the respect that you did in this post.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flame On

It's a frickin joke with a couple of "posters" in this thread that you single out Lanny for criticism in the respect that you did in this post.

Really? I consider singling him out an honour in that he has something to say. Might not be correct, but he is worth discussing the situation with. And if at ANY time, you think what I have put forward is incorrect, please feel free to participate.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

16000... ring a bell? Prove it, or retract it. Balls in your court.

You'll have to take that number up with Thomas Friedman and the Discovery Channel.

If you think I went Shergil on you, you ain't seen nothing yet my friend. I will respect your opinions and perspectives to my dying day, but I do not respect the garbage baggage of pot shots. I can do that too, quite easily. I refrain from it. Hope you choose to as well. It isn't about a sense of humour. it just ain't funny. And certainly not worthy of your calibre of posting.

Sure thing, as long as you follow suit. So far your posts in this thread have been filled with potshots and you claiming information YOU are unable to backup in any shape or form.

The bolded word in your post that was the most important was "anywhere". Speak to that first. As a poster has already indicated, it isn't feasible to stick a windmill up out in the blue and expect results. As for your lack of knowing what production cost are vis-a-vis the ROI, I suggest you look further. Might wake you up a bit.

Educate me. If you have the information, please bring it forward. The only information that I have found that addresses costs are associated with production costs of kilowatts of power, and wind power in he shape of wind farms is the lowest cost. Do you think that the costs of the windmills are not factored into these cost comparisons? If the information that I have posted is incorrect please post the correct information with supporting information. A poster of your caliber should be able to do that.

Lanny, the general concept of geothermal is the norm right now is home/building cooling/heating. General Wiki info here. However, on a larger scale, if THAT is what you are proposing, perhaps you might be surprised to note I have already brought that up in a thread here where I have clearly supported a geothermal concept:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=36499

And I got flak for it... larf...

I don't know why you got flak for anything.

As for the rest of your misdirections or blatherings, sorry, I am not taking part. You can research the issues of ethanol, and the mercury in the new wave of bulbs as easily as you can post your other links. You would any way. Again, this was all based on a skimming of your posts, and you have failed to rebut anything at all. Wood bats 0..... again.

Okay, so you natter on about respecting opinions and perspectives, but then start tossing around words like misdirections and blatherings? Wow. Then you toss out a couple of subjects and tell ME that I should speak to these subjects when its YOU that have brought them up. Speak to some specifics that you have problems with so I understand your pespective and respond accordingly. You have provided NOTHING to rebut. To rebut something there has to be something worthy of rebutting. What should I rebut? Your incorrect information that you posted on geothermal energy? Come on man, if you want to take part in the thread, take part in the thread. Provide a little more information to your arguments and be a lot more clear on what point you're trying to make.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And you know this how? I'm very curious about this as there are wind energy farms all over the United States, so why would it be different in the United States than in Canada or vice versace?

I'll PM you later, but I wouldn't say US wind farms are all over the place, yes more prevailent, but still a tiny slice of the energy pie. Suffice to say, if you could make money in canada with wind farms, especially in AB where Nat Gas gen is always on the margin you'd do it. Maybe in the US they subsidise the he// out of them, I don't know, but they don't work here very often.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Compared to the sunk cost of any other energy plant? I don't get your point. Did you not follow and read the link in the last reply?

"A modern wind farm that is located in a good area can generate power for about 3 ½ cents per kilowatt-hour. That compares very favorably with other new forms of generation. For reference, diesel generation costs between 8 and 16 cents per kwh and nuclear power costs between 11 and 15 cents per kwh."

Do you not think that the costs of the wind farm are factored into these costs per kilo-watt-hour?

Yes, compared to any other energy plant, any other currently viable energy plant. Think of it in terms of capital outlay per energy output.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

All of these "nice" and "cute" ideas are already in use in many locations around the world. Many of them are already used in industrial applications to reduce energy costs. Just because they are not yet adopted in North America does not make them poor concepts.

Maybe the wrong words, but if they were viable they'd be here. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, the market is always correct and the market is never manipulated.

Lanny, you usually have good posts, if not correct they are at least well thought out and worth consideration, but you have to admit, that last sentance is a complete cop out. How exactly is the big old mean oil company, or government 'manipulating' everyone out of better alternatives. Best I can tell (although I haven't spent much time tabulating" the largest investments I hear of into alternatives are from governments and big oil companies.

It's a really simple market economy, if there is a buck to make, someone will do it. People have to deal with the fact that alternatives are hard. I know Gore and Suzuki mean well, but they don't have to deal with the real world considerations of just 'going green'. You NEED ALTERNATIVES, that the market simply has not developed. Any idiot without a couple IQ points to rub together can slam the tories for their new policy on emissions, but you can't just say no more emissions by 2025, or equally ludacris "we are back on the Kyoto bandwagon" you need a plan, and nobody on this planet has one yet. Sucks but its true.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lanny, you usually have good posts, if not correct they are at least well thought out and worth consideration, but you have to admit, that last sentance is a complete cop out. How exactly is the big old mean oil company, or government 'manipulating' everyone out of better alternatives. Best I can tell (although I haven't spent much time tabulating" the largest investments I hear of into alternatives are from governments and big oil companies.

I can't figure that out either.

Like I said, around here, its the big 'oil' companies that spend millions of dollars on these windmills.

Without Shell Plant, they simply wouldn't exist.

[Phaneuf3]

change towards green is good but i think some people are expecting too much too fast. i would absolutely love it if i could snap my fingers and there was a clean efficient and reliable way to generate enough electricity for the entire world. it would be fantastic if all those people in the oil industry could be instantly retrained and re-educated since their line of work would be finished. its great to want to bring the big bad oil company to its knees for the sake of mother earth but its employees and their families need to eat. and yes, i wish my car didn't burn gasoline and could run on rainbows and smiles; unfortunately we live in the real world.

how fast and how drastic can the changes be? maybe a little bit faster... but probably not fast enough for the likes of gore.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You'll have to take that number up with Thomas Friedman and the Discovery Channel.

Link it mate. You are NOT backing up your claim, and I am sure not going searching for YOUR answers. You made the claim, for the last time.. back... it... up.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Sure thing, as long as you follow suit. So far your posts in this thread have been filled with potshots and you claiming information YOU are unable to backup in any shape or form.

Excuse me? Come on Lanny, the point you are quoting is referring to YOUR attack personna. How in the heck can I rebut your attack style in MY post? Bottom line, keep it on topic. Your continual potshots in most threads are not worthy of your knowledge and/or posting ability.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Educate me. If you have the information, please bring it forward. The only information that I have found that addresses costs are associated with production costs of kilowatts of power, and wind power in he shape of wind farms is the lowest cost. Do you think that the costs of the windmills are not factored into these cost comparisons? If the information that I have posted is incorrect please post the correct information with supporting information. A poster of your caliber should be able to do that.

OK, as for optimal positions for windfarms, I have seen government maps which clearly show the Crowsnest Pass (and area due East thereof) as being prime areas, but other than that, lower if not null regions in the rest of the Prairies. I will hunt for them to follow up, but rest assured, they do clearly indicate what I am discussing.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I don't know why you got flak for anything.

Hey, as I indicated, I am certainly NOT against what needs to be done.... I just believe misinformation needs to be cleared up.

As for the rest, you know me better than that. Damn man, all I ever hope for is to enjoy your amazing ability to research and debate issues like this one, but preferably with your critical analysis from the dark side regardless of what side you prefer. If you can do that with Iggy.. you can do that here.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Really? I consider singling him out an honour in that he has something to say. Might not be correct, but he is worth discussing the situation with. And if at ANY time, you think what I have put forward is incorrect, please feel free to participate.

The fact you single someone out is an honour?
I'm not talking about a pissing match about which of you know more about a subject. I don't think you've proven you're more qualified than Lanny. Both you of sound like you know what you're talking about.
I'm just amazed that you say something about Lanny when you have worthless posters; IMO, like Mykalberta spouting off about birkenstocks and making personal attacks about personal hygene. Whom also haven't raised a single point about the matter at hand and who have outright lied.
As for debating you. You sound like you know what you're talking about. But I don't buy that you know more than a panel of experts around the world who say there is a problem and that's who'll I'll go with no matter what you say. That's not to be offensive, I just think if you were the preeminant expert on the matter we'd be seeing your opinions courted in the news and governemnt and global panels.
Those two posters are just really corosive and it irked that you compared another poster who does bring arguments to the table, even if you disagree.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flame On

<snip>

Both HOZ and myk are on my ingore list, if that helps clarify their position in my perspective, Flame On. Neither of their opinions means squat to me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

iwish my car didn't burn gasoline and could run on rainbows and smiles; unfortunately we live in the real world.

I haven't seen Gore's movie. He doesn't really advocate a car that runs on rainbows and smiles, does he? I don't think that's even possible. I believe rainbows are mostly water vapor and smiles generate almost zero kinetic energy -- not nearly enough to power even a single golf cart, let alone a city full of cars.

From what I've read, a big part of the message appears to be "use less, and use what you do use, use it more efficiently". It's a far cry from the slightly hysterical "leave the oil in the ground", "change everything" and "he wants us to sit in the dark while he lives in a mansion and flies around in a private jet" rhetoric that is being applied to him.

[V]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

There are very small areas in which a large scale windmill, let alone farm, can be deployed. Consistant high winds from a generally stable direction are paramount to being effective in harvesting that power. The energy cost to construct a windmill is quite high as well. How long before it is "paid off" in green energy (let alone maintaining it.)

Actually, keep an eye out for mini-windmill power generation. An interesting idea that Enmax has started up here, that you would've seen if you had been at the Gore presentation.

I don't know all the details, but if clean energy is a priority for you, look into this in the near future. I'm sure more information will become available soon.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

France runs on ~ 80% Nuclear Power for its power generation.

If it wasn't for the Stigma as Lanny mentioned of 3 mile island and Chernobyl, it would definately be more widely used. It is easier, cheaper and cleaner than using fossil fuels.

Very true.

And that was my whole point. It is easy to say "Use Nuclear power." Much harder to implement it.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And you talk for who?

Gore may be a hypocrite, I don't know. I don't even care. Why is he so important to you? His personality and lifestyle are completely irrelevant to the matter.

If you think this global warming thing is bogus then that's one thing, but the message you and other "I Hate Gore" types are putting out there is "Gore doesn't do it, why should I"? which is both childish and dangerous.

And it's not like the guy just cooked up a doomsday scenario and is now out there selling it for cash. This theory has been kicking around for like 20 years.

One thing I always wonder about the skeptics is do they believe that we should just keep going, using more and more as fast as possible, forever.

Forget global warming, what about plain old pollution? Shouldn't we cut back? Where are we going to end up if we keep doing this? A thousand barrels a second -- thats kind of intense, wouldn't you say? Never mind what else we burn up in that second. If this e-mail took me 3 minutes to write, then while I was doing it, 180 thousand barrels of oil were burned. That has to be affecting something negatively.

It is quite obvious that you cannot conceptualise that I can be a skeptic of the DOOMS DAY hysterics and their extremely distasteful leaders like Suzuki and Gore who profit off of it. Yet can still believe in Global Warming.

I have some very serious doubts that this is anything other than a mostly natural phenomina. That even if we do cut back global warming will continue unabated. It would be great to cut back on polution just for the sake of cleanliness and health! BUT, if we implemented many of the radical ideas floating around without looking at the costs and affects that they will cause I believe we'd create a greater manmade natural disaster. A Haiti on a continental level!

However, for you, since I am a skeptic this thinking is not possible. I am all for polluting. In fact, I am going to change the oil in my car and dump it straight down the drain. For that is all you can conceptualize about me.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Riiight. Take away access to the largest or second largest reserve of oil on the planet and all we would have is a little shift.

If there were decent substitutes, they would have emerged, the next trillionaire on this planet will be one that can source energy that displaces oil on a large scale ... but it hasn't happened.

Back in real life, the planet needs oil. Environmentalists have the easy part, they can be populists and say less emissions and green green green! Politician are the one that have to deal with reality and need to actualy think about consquences of decisions.

When we set targets we will force industry and consumer to make better choices.

It's nothing that a small lifestyle shift, a small technology shift, and a small industry shift can't handle. We already have most of the answers, we just need to put them into place. And we have all the time in the world to improve the technology.

The answer is not in a big change. It's in a lot of small changes from everyone involved. Politicians, consumers, and business.

People will always stick up for the status quo cause they are afraid of change, and politicians will always pander to the companies. Companies will protect their bottom line (and CEO's their insane salaries) with to the point of losing true vision that would actually help them in the long run.

It's less about a can we, and more of a will we.

The level of resistance that we have gotten from those in power both government and business is ridculous, irresponsible and largely uncalled for.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Daradon

When we set targets we will force industry and consumer to make better choices.

It's nothing that a small lifestyle shift, a small technology shift, and a small industry shift can't handle. We already have most of the answers, we just need to put them into place. And we have all the time in the world to improve the technology.

The answer is not in a big change. It's in a lot of small changes from everyone involved. Politicians, consumers, and business.

People will always stick up for the status quo cause they are afraid of change, and politicians will always pander to the companies. Companies will protect their bottom line (and CEO's their insane salaries) with to the point of losing true vision that would actually help them in the long run.

It's less about a can we, and more of a will we.

The level of resistance that we have gotten from those in power both government and business is ridculous, irresponsible and largely uncalled for.

OK, so exactly what small lifestyle shift, a small technology shift, and a small industry shift do you refer to. I'd like to hear the details here. Easy to say, gives us a nice warm fuzzy feeling, but extremely difficult in practise. Please detail what these small shifts are.

[Daradon]

^^^ The details are all over this thread. Either you haven't read hem or have disregarded them.

But lets start. A hybrid car will significantly reduce the amount of gasoline you'll use. Going on the waste not want not theme, there are way too many SUV's and trucks that aren't fuel efficient. Not just for power, but in general. Because it costs more to sell an efficent vehicle. Well if you can't afford a vehicle, maybe you shouldn't have one. That would be lifestyle AND corporate.

We use far to much electricity (and water and food etc but not the focus of this thread) Better bulbs, better appliances will cut down a lot. Better habits will help. I'm a huge saver, but I know so many who aren't Using lights and appliances they don't need to, having things on when they don't need to.

Better buildings and houses improve this even further. Use more natural light, add solar to your water heater/supply if applicable, better insulation. The list goes on and on.

Everyone does a litle bit, and it's so easy. That's why government can enact such measures and let the market take over. If on thing free market has proven it's very adaptable.

You joke because you choose not to change or feel inconvienced. The answers are already out there and MANY OF US HAVE DONE THEM. With government and corporate support, it's only easier.

Businesses are afraid case they want to sell as cheap as possible to retain advantage. People are afraid cause they don't want to pay more.

But when the system gets standardized everyone will be selling/paying the same anyway. And yes we will be paying a tiny more, but that's the lifestyle change.

Way better than the consequences. And we waste too much as it is. Morally we do. We're pigs, we waste. It's our responsibility to get better.

[Flame On]

I don't understand how it's a "warm fuzzy" feeling to use a lightbulb that lasts longer and you don't have to change as often and saves on your electricity bill.
I don't understand how it's rainbows and smiles to use a reuseable shopping bag for groceries.
There's two small things that add up to change.
I think on Oprah's green show (I know, snicker snicker) she said if every American replaced just one bulb with a CFT bulb it would take the equivalent of a million cars off the road. Or something like that. As an example of something very little, that can be done. If buying a different lightbulb changes your life or your wallet you have bigger problems. lol