Solar and Wind - Carbon Neutral Canada


Karlin
#1
Canada can be a world leader by making our electrical production "carbon neutral" within 10 without breaking the bank.
.
Its not hard to do, it is within reach simply by spending government surpluses on renewable energy projects.

Canada's electrical untilites are producing a lot of GHGs [greenhouse gasses] , and those could be completely wiped out within 10 years, and the excess capacity could then start to power our vehicles and further reduce emssions.

We now use 113 Gw [gigawatts] of electricity in Canada. Hydro electric accounts for 66.8Gw, so we can subtract that because it is carbon neutral allready, leaving about 48Gw to be replaced by renewables. That 48Gw, rounded up to 50Gw for growth, can be split half and half between WIND and SOLAR, they will each need to be producing a constant average of about 25Gw each.

25Gw of solar power can be attained by investing between $100Billion to $150B depending on the cost of solar panels. Spread over the next 10 years, it will require governments to put up about $10B a year.

Canada's federal budget surplus was about $20B in 2006, and provinces also had about $6B in surpluses in BC, Ab, and Sask. Therefore, it won't be a hard hit at all to provide that financing for renewable energy. Also, we could let private corporations invest, but it will not serve canadians needs as well as having it as a public resource, because the cost of electricity could be set at whatever we like, even ZERO if the costs are all paid for up front. Plus, these installations will MAKE MONEY every year for 20 years, and that can be added to our govenrment surpluses.

And as for WIND, and the 25Gw from that, well, wind power is CHEAPER than solar, so it is easy to see that this is do-able.

It is a no brainer - the resistance to RENEWABLES all comes from the "fossil fools" who insist on using dirty GHG producing fuels for electricity, EVEN THOUGH THEY END UP COSTING MORE. Over the 20 year lifetime operation -without input costs for fuel like regular electrical generation has - solar and wind installations actually give back a very good economic return at 10 cents per kilowatt hour of operation - investing $300 Million now will provide over $2.8BILLION [!!!] in the 20 year lifespan. Thats a pretty good return eh?

It is being kept silent, we are not told how great this return on renewables WILL be. The reason it is kept quiet is that "certain people will no longer profit, but others will". and those friends of Harper all make aliving from fossil fuels burning to produce electricity. ARRRGGGG, its so damn criminal to continue favouring those wealthy elites now that global warming is upon us.

There is no problem to becoming carbon neutral, it is simply a matter of who gets to profit from electrical sales, something that should be public because we all use it, and now there is global warming created by our "business as usual" bull****.
 
jjaycee98
#2
Most things come down in price over time. Solar panels are still very expensive. Now we are looking at Nuclear Power again. If there isn't money to be made from every step along the way then we don't pursue it?
 
BitWhys
-1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by jjaycee98 View Post

...If there isn't money to be made from every step along the way then we don't pursue it?

hell no. we show the Americans how to kill with it and wait for the Pentagon to fund it.
 
Karlin
#4
Why not? Read and learn -
The non-fossil fuel energy systems represent a threat to the control that having "fossil fuels as our primary energy source" give the wealthy elites.

Nuclear is sometimes ok with them, because it is a system that o nly wealthy people can invest in, and control

Having control of energy means having control of EVERY ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. That is how they kept CHINA from becoming a super-power years ago - the wealthy elites allowed only a little oil to go there, and so coal was China's only energy source, which held them back economically.

But hey, just keep on your same old trak and see where we end up. Right. Good planning makes for good outcomes, and we are not planning to meet the challenges of global warming caused by fossil fuels emissions. Oh right, you do not really know for sure about that....
 
Johnnny
+1
#5
Last night there was a power outage and i think if i make enough money after university im buying me a couple of solar panel thingys
 
s243a
+1
#6
Karlin, can you please quote your source? The source should reference example solar or wind power production facilities. It should give the cost to build them in dollars and in energy, the amount of power they produce, the maintenance cost and some talk about the reliability of the facilities. Even if feasible it does not mean the public would want to take this route. Keep in mind Al Gore was unwilling to pay 2 cents more per kilowatt hour to power his giant energy guzzling home by wind power.
 
Fingertrouble
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by s243a View Post

Karlin, can you please quote your source? The source should reference example solar or wind power production facilities. It should give the cost to build them in dollars and in energy, the amount of power they produce, the maintenance cost and some talk about the reliability of the facilities. Even if feasible it does not mean the public would want to take this route. Keep in mind Al Gore was unwilling to pay 2 cents more per kilowatt hour to power his giant energy guzzling home by wind power.

All good questions...i would also like to know how many solar and wind facilites there would have to be to produce the same amount of energy? Where would we have to put these vast solar panel facilities and unsightly windfarms that not only would make them viable, but also acceptable to the local communities?
 
Unforgiven
+1
#8
14 terrawatts. That's all we'll need in the coming couple of decades.
I'll be surprised if we aren't back to burning wood for fuel by then.
 
Tonington
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Fingertrouble View Post

Where would we have to put these vast solar panel facilities and unsightly windfarms that not only would make them viable, but also acceptable to the local communities?

I would call all forms of electricity production unsightly. I prefer a windmill to a coal fired smoke stack any day of the week. All forms of energy that we can manipulate have their drawbacks.
 
Niflmir
#10
Well, I am really lazy, so I will shamefully use media as if its an actual source...

CTV claims that a three bedroom house can be run off the grid for about $40k. 30 million people in Canada, average of 1.3 kids, That's about 10 million houses, or about $400 billion, which makes the estimate in the opening statement seem about right, since that estimate included air conditioning and heating. So that is the cost without oil furnaces for heat. Which would reduce our GHG emission even more. The average family is taxed more than $20k per year, so a $4k energy rebate per household per year over 10 years would satisfy the $400 billion estimate easily. Then everyone would have a little windmill and solar panel on their house.

For the record, the last time I checked, it could be done for less that $40k, but if you have to have your air conditioning...
 
Zzarchov
#11
1.) Burning wood is Carbon Neutral. The carbon put into the biosphere from the burning is also being taken out of the biosphere. Its perfectly fine in terms of carbon (other problems such as volume is another matter.

2.) Solar especially is NOT carbon neutral. In addition to the massive amount of pollution solar panel systems create in the form of heavy metals (which cannot be broken down) there is also alot of carbon required in construction of them, more so than is often saved.



Your best bet ot be Carbon Neutral is nuclear, as it produces less undisposable waste than solar and provides vast amounts of cheap power.
 
Gilgamesh
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin View Post

Canada can be a world leader by making our electrical production "carbon neutral" within 10 without breaking the bank.
.
Its not hard to do, it is within reach simply by spending government surpluses on renewable energy projects.

Canada's electrical untilites are producing a lot of GHGs [greenhouse gasses] , and those could be completely wiped out within 10 years, and the excess capacity could then start to power our vehicles and further reduce emssions.

We now use 113 Gw [gigawatts] of electricity in Canada. Hydro electric accounts for 66.8Gw, so we can subtract that because it is carbon neutral allready, leaving about 48Gw to be replaced by renewables. That 48Gw, rounded up to 50Gw for growth, can be split half and half between WIND and SOLAR, they will each need to be producing a constant average of about 25Gw each.

25Gw of solar power can be attained by investing between $100Billion to $150B depending on the cost of solar panels. Spread over the next 10 years, it will require governments to put up about $10B a year.

Canada's federal budget surplus was about $20B in 2006, and provinces also had about $6B in surpluses in BC, Ab, and Sask. Therefore, it won't be a hard hit at all to provide that financing for renewable energy. Also, we could let private corporations invest, but it will not serve canadians needs as well as having it as a public resource, because the cost of electricity could be set at whatever we like, even ZERO if the costs are all paid for up front. Plus, these installations will MAKE MONEY every year for 20 years, and that can be added to our govenrment surpluses.

And as for WIND, and the 25Gw from that, well, wind power is CHEAPER than solar, so it is easy to see that this is do-able.

It is a no brainer - the resistance to RENEWABLES all comes from the "fossil fools" who insist on using dirty GHG producing fuels for electricity, EVEN THOUGH THEY END UP COSTING MORE. Over the 20 year lifetime operation -without input costs for fuel like regular electrical generation has - solar and wind installations actually give back a very good economic return at 10 cents per kilowatt hour of operation - investing $300 Million now will provide over $2.8BILLION [!!!] in the 20 year lifespan. Thats a pretty good return eh?

It is being kept silent, we are not told how great this return on renewables WILL be. The reason it is kept quiet is that "certain people will no longer profit, but others will". and those friends of Harper all make aliving from fossil fuels burning to produce electricity. ARRRGGGG, its so damn criminal to continue favouring those wealthy elites now that global warming is upon us.

There is no problem to becoming carbon neutral, it is simply a matter of who gets to profit from electrical sales, something that should be public because we all use it, and now there is global warming created by our "business as usual" bull****.

ROFLMAO

And the Lord said, "and the gullible we shall have with us always".

Actually I should not be laughing. The logical and scientific ignorance which is a product of our educational system is downright embarassing.
 
Hoid
#13
Rest assured by the time we are completely switched over to alternative energy that energy will cost us just as much as oil does now.

Because bidness is bidness.
 
Murphy
+3
#14  Top Rated Post
Sorry, sweetie, but even at 14, you won't see that happen in your lifetime. Your wide eyed innocence is cute, but way off base.

Learn more about oil and coal. They are the future for at least 50 years. Your game boy is powered by "alternative energy". That means "not mainstream". Ask your science teacher.
 
Gilgamesh
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin View Post

Why not? Read and learn -
The non-fossil fuel energy systems represent a threat to the control that having "fossil fuels as our primary energy source" give the wealthy elites.

Nuclear is sometimes ok with them, because it is a system that o nly wealthy people can invest in, and control

Having control of energy means having control of EVERY ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. That is how they kept CHINA from becoming a super-power years ago - the wealthy elites allowed only a little oil to go there, and so coal was China's only energy source, which held them back economically.

But hey, just keep on your same old trak and see where we end up. Right. Good planning makes for good outcomes, and we are not planning to meet the challenges of global warming caused by fossil fuels emissions. Oh right, you do not really know for sure about that....

Thankyou SJW Karlin.

Please learn basic economic facts. Your lack of basic knowledge is embarassing us.
 
Hoid
#16
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-prices-down

interesting article about renewable energy in Australia.

turns out consumers are paying less.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#17
So now what?

Oilsands research could be 'game changer' for renewable energy

Researchers are extracting vanadium from the oilsands and using it to build batteries

Will the Oilsands be a god send for the renewable revolution Lol
 
EagleSmack
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin View Post

Canada can be a world leader by making our electrical production "carbon neutral" within 10 without breaking the bank.

LMAOOOOOO

I love these necro threads. So full of hope and promise... all false of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnnny View Post

Last night there was a power outage and i think if i make enough money after university im buying me a couple of solar panel thingys

Did you ever get those thingys?
 
Hoid
+1
#19
Interestingly one of the main players in Canadian alternative energy is Enbridge.

Business is business, and anyone currently in power generation is going to be investing in the alternatives simply as a matter of course.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#20
As long as the subsidies keep coming.
 
Cannuck
#21
Southern Alberta wind power being sold to US. Thanks Trump
 
EagleSmack
#22
Link?
 
Hoid
#23
the other aspect is that the Prairies and Alberta in particular have huge potential as alternative energy producers.

Could establish themselves as the leading and best producer of clean energy on Earth - rather the provider of the worst oil.

Instead of pouring billions more into oil and gas pour it into alternative and be leaders for once.
 
EagleSmack
#24
That would be a big waste of money.
 
Cannuck
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Link?


You're joking right?
 
EagleSmack
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

You're joking right?

Well I was looking for it to read about it. If you don't have a link that's fine.
 
Cannuck
#27
I'm not sure who is more clueless about wind generation, you or Flossy.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#28
Look, if you don't have a link that's fine. I was just asking.
 
Cannuck
#29
Go have your afternoon nap
 
EagleSmack
+1
#30
So I take it that you don't have a link.
 

Similar Threads

75
Should Canada Become a Neutral Country?
by Northboy | Apr 14th, 2018
46
Why is Canada so solar power inept ?
by temperance | Jan 27th, 2007
1
Alberta Canada ALRB is not neutral!!!!
by le_franco2006 | Jan 11th, 2006