Super Genius
Posts: 1,274 
November 5th, 2006, 01:22 PM
There are two huge dirty ugly coal plants about to go on stream in BC, to supply electricity for our needs over and above what our hydro dams are producing.
If the Govt of BC was serious about reducing emissions [BC is one of the worst in terms of increases since 1990] , they would do all they can to find other ways to supply electricity, other than burning coal.
One way is simple - two solar panels for every resident of BC !! Its true - if there were the basic meter-byhalf-meter sized solar panels on rooftops of our homes, not every home but, for eg., two or three homes in a city block where residents got together on it and accounted for two solar panels for every resident, we would have the 3 Gigawatts these coal-burners are going to produce.
No help, not even encouragement from the govt of BC. , on projects that would see alternatives to fossil fuels to reduce GG emissions.
Heck, even just EFFICIENCY like better light bulbs and technological upgrades would eliminate the need for those two coal burners.
The thing is, th coal industry and the power generators are heavy contributors to ALL the BC politicians in the major parties. Thats why it is essential to stop electing mainstream polliticians. They are selling out our future for a quick buck for themselves - someone is getting rich off global warmings cause and its not the average person.
Please, protest those two coal burning electricity plants [Princeton and Surrey?] [sorry, I don't have the energy [I am too lazy] to look it up now...] ['cuz nobody really cares anyhow, the hell with it]
K
There are two huge dirty ugly coal plants about to go on stream in BC, to supply electricity for our needs over and above what our hydro dams are producing.
If the Govt of BC was serious about reducing emissions [BC is one of the worst in terms of increases since 1990] , they would do all they can to find other ways to supply electricity, other than burning coal.
One way is simple - two solar panels for every resident of BC !! Its true - if there were the basic meter-byhalf-meter sized solar panels on rooftops of our homes, not every home but, for eg., two or three homes in a city block where residents got together on it and accounted for two solar panels for every resident, we would have the 3 Gigawatts these coal-burners are going to produce.
No help, not even encouragement from the govt of BC. , on projects that would see alternatives to fossil fuels to reduce GG emissions.
Heck, even just EFFICIENCY like better light bulbs and technological upgrades would eliminate the need for those two coal burners.
The thing is, th coal industry and the power generators are heavy contributors to ALL the BC politicians in the major parties. Thats why it is essential to stop electing mainstream polliticians. They are selling out our future for a quick buck for themselves - someone is getting rich off global warmings cause and its not the average person.
Please, protest those two coal burning electricity plants [Princeton and Surrey?] [sorry, I don't have the energy [I am too lazy] to look it up now...] ['cuz nobody really cares anyhow, the hell with it]
K
Executive Member
Posts: 9,137 
November 5th, 2006, 02:04 PM
If a solar panel was at the very edge of our atmosphere, it might receive about a hundred and twenty five watts per square foot. If we move that solar panel down to the ground, or to the roof of a house, we would only get about seventy watts per square foot. Now, do we rotate that solar panel to follow the sun? If we don't, we would only get the maximum energy when the sun was overhead, and less and less as the sun moved towards the horizon. In Vancouver, we get a fair amount of cloud during the winter when we need the energy the most. On a cloudy day you would get only a small fraction of the energy that you got when it was clear. You might have to amortize the cost of your solar panel over quite a few years to justify the installation.
If a solar panel was at the very edge of our atmosphere, it might receive about a hundred and twenty five watts per square foot. If we move that solar panel down to the ground, or to the roof of a house, we would only get about seventy watts per square foot. Now, do we rotate that solar panel to follow the sun? If we don't, we would only get the maximum energy when the sun was overhead, and less and less as the sun moved towards the horizon. In Vancouver, we get a fair amount of cloud during the winter when we need the energy the most. On a cloudy day you would get only a small fraction of the energy that you got when it was clear. You might have to amortize the cost of your solar panel over quite a few years to justify the installation.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,137
November 5th, 2006, 03:07 PM
We don't have anything like the Bay of Fundy on the west coast but maybe one of the narrower fjords up the coast would be suitable. I know that tidal turbines can be designed for different current velocities but I think the cost might put this behind things like windmills and general energy conservation in order of preference.
We don't have anything like the Bay of Fundy on the west coast but maybe one of the narrower fjords up the coast would be suitable. I know that tidal turbines can be designed for different current velocities but I think the cost might put this behind things like windmills and general energy conservation in order of preference.
