Carbon Tax Propossal

[Wild Bill]

Where did hydro go? Considering Canada generates 58% of its electricity from hydro, and that Canada is a land of water and rivers, why aren't you focussing on this area? Hydro (and micro hydro in remote locations) is and always will be a valid option.

It's not just the hydroelectric plant. It's the dam and its effect on the local environment. Many if not most of the developed sites are on First Nation land and they often resist making any deal at any price.

It's also the transmission lines. Hundreds if not thousands of miles of towers and high tension cables. Often over poor or wet soil that causes problems with stability. Maintenance men might have to fly in!

Those of us who haven't much or any technical experience often don't realize the extra complications. Like championing electric cars without considering that this will mean far greater demands on our electricity grid.

Details, details. As Gilda Radner used to say: "It's always something!"

[stevoh]

It's not just the hydroelectric plant. It's the dam and its effect on the local environment. Many if not most of the developed sites are on First Nation land and they often resist making any deal at any price.

It's also the transmission lines. Hundreds if not thousands of miles of towers and high tension cables. Often over poor or wet soil that causes problems with stability. Maintenance men might have to fly in!

Those of us who haven't much or any technical experience often don't realize the extra complications. Like championing electric cars without considering that this will mean far greater demands on our electricity grid.

Details, details. As Gilda Radner used to say: "It's always something!"

Transmission lines are just as long for other electricity sources. Most of Alberta's coal powered electrical generation plants are in central alberta, close to the coal sources.

http://environment.alberta.ca/1164.html

Coal-fired generating plants presently supply most of Alberta's electrical power generation. Natural gas supplies most of the remainder. The rest is derived from hydro, wind and other power sources.

Most electrical generating plants are located in central Alberta, close to the coal mines that supply them. Other generating plants are located along the Bow, Kananaskis, North Saskatchewan and Brazeau rivers, part of hydro electric systems that feed into the main power network.

Large transmission lines lead from these generating plants to urban and rural centres throughout Alberta.

[Wilber]

Where did hydro go? Considering Canada generates 58% of its electricity from hydro, and that Canada is a land of water and rivers, why aren't you focussing on this area? Hydro (and micro hydro in remote locations) is and always will be a valid option.

There are limits to hydro electric power as well. You can't dam every river in the country without consequences. Site C on the Peace is the only viable place left in BC for a large dam. It will probably go ahead but there has been a lot of opposition. The Fraser and Skeena are non starters unless you want them to go the same way as the Columbia and destroy their fishery. Run of river hydro projects are proving to have an effect on the fishery and can have a large environmental footprint for the amount power they produce. For those places where hydro is not an option, nuclear augmented in some cases with wind are the only realistic carbon free alternatives.

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE(madmax @ May 26 2008, 05:49 AM) *

Harper doesn't have a winning strategy.

Harper did save the country between 10 and 20 Billion by getting out of the kyoto scheme. As far as saving the planet goes, if you believe all the doom and gloom, we're all doomed unless india and china reduce their emissions. You might as well grab the first woman you see, tell her the world's coming to an end and make sweet love to her. That's a winning strategy to me.

I don't think that Dion's plan sounds that imaginative, but as someone who has been on the sidelines of the environmental debate, I think it's better than no plan at all - which is what Harper is offering.

4 out of 5 Canadians believe global warming exists, according to this poll from last year:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/22/...nment-poll.html

[Wilber]

I don't think that Dion's plan sounds that imaginative, but as someone who has been on the sidelines of the environmental debate, I think it's better than no plan at all - which is what Harper is offering.

4 out of 5 Canadians believe global warming exists, according to this poll from last year:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/22/...nment-poll.html

I think global warming exists but that doesn't mean I know why or what if anything I can really do about it. If you don't know what you are doing, no plan at all can be a lot better than any old plan.

Reminds me of a foreign company I once worked for. If something got screwed up they came up with a procedure. Didn't really matter if it fixed the problem as long as they had a procedure.

[stevoh]

There are limits to hydro electric power as well. You can't dam every river in the country without consequences. Site C on the Peace is the only viable place left in BC for a large dam. It will probably go ahead but there has been a lot of opposition. The Fraser and Skeena are non starters unless you want them to go the same way as the Columbia and destroy their fishery. Run of river hydro projects are proving to have an effect on the fishery and can have a large environmental footprint for the amount power they produce. For those places where hydro is not an option, nuclear augmented in some cases with wind are the only realistic carbon free alternatives.

I am not suggesting Hydro is the holy grail of power solutions. I am saying that it cannot be eliminated from a discussion around future energy generation. And, it is not directly dependent on soaring fuel costs.

[Riverwind]

Frankly, I don't see a correlation. Certainly nowhere near an equivalent growth rate. It looks like the real scaremonger in this debate has been revealed.

Electricity is heavily regulated - oil is a free market. This means changes to electricity prices take time. Look what happens to electricity when it sold under a free market mechanism: http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAND/research/s...um/ESBCAdv.html

The first lesson taken from this research is that Albertans have not experienced lower prices, or a more stable supply of electricity under a deregulated electricity regime. In contrast, Albertans are paying a premium price for their deregulated electricity. Between June and October of 2000, the price of electricity rose from 5 cents to 25 cents per kWh (kilo watt hour). Without the $2.3 billion rebate program for households and businesses, Albertans would have seen their residential electric bills go up by 500% in this same period. Price hikes are especially harmful for small-business, residential, and low-income customers. Large industrial interests are more likely to be aggressively solicited by power producers and secure deals on the rising cost of electricity.

Granted these excesses were mostly the result of market manipulations but they do demonstrate why the recent stability in electrical prices does not refute my claim the current government policies are setting the stage for wide spread electrical shortages in the future. When that happens re-regulating market won't make the problem go away because there won't be enough electricity to go around.

It is also worth noting that the opportunities for market manipulations created by deregulation in the Alberta and California electricity markets are a preview to what will happen if the alarmists succeed in getting a carbon trading regime established. It is no co-incidince that the management at Enron were amoung the first corporate types to jump on the AGW band wagon. I am pretty sure it was not because those guys were birkenstock wearing hippies looking to save the planet.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Transmission lines are just as long for other electricity sources. Most of Alberta's coal powered electrical generation plants are in central alberta, close to the coal sources.

http://environment.alberta.ca/1164.html

Sorry. I thought we were talking about hydro as an alternative. What are the chances that transmission lines running to coal generators are conveniently close to hydro sources? That's what could make hydro a more expensive choice than some might think.

[stevoh]

Electricity is heavily regulated - oil is a free market. This means changes to electricity prices take time. Look what happens to electricity when it sold under a free market mechanism: http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAND/research/s...um/ESBCAdv.html

Granted these excesses were mostly the result of market manipulations but they do demonstrate why the recent stability in electrical prices does not refute my claim the current government policies are setting the stage for wide spread electrical shortages in the future. When that happens re-regulating market won't make the problem go away because there won't be enough electricity to go around.

It is also worth noting that the opportunities market manipulations created by deregulation in the Alberta and California electricity markets are a preview to what will happen if the alarmists succeed in getting a carbon trading regime established. It is no co-incidince that the management at Enron were amoung the first corporate types to jump on the AGW band wagon. I am pretty sure it was not because those guys were birkenstock wearing hippies looking to save the planet.

What private corporations do to increase their bottom line has nothing to do with our debate over whether or not electricity prices will increase at the same rate as oil prices. Privatized electrical providers will increase their rates to whatever the market will bear without regulation (even resorting to deliberately manipulated shortages). This is not dependent on oil prices, it is dependent on corporate decision making.

So, over time, as oil prices increase, the costs associated with electric cars will decrease relative to gas powered vehicles.

Carbon trading is rubbish, you will get no argument from me there.

[Riverwind]

Privatized electrical providers will increase their rates to whatever the market will bear without regulation (even resorting to deliberately manipulated shortages). This is not dependent on oil prices, it is dependent on corporate decision making.

If there are fewer producers of the product then the market price will go up. Government regulation that prevents new supply from entering the marketplace will result in higher prices. An essential item like electricity is vulnerable to price shocks if demand exceeds supply.

So, over time, as oil prices increase, the costs associated with electric cars will decrease relative to gas powered vehicles.

Not unless there is a supply of electricity. We don't have the supply that would allow us to convert the gas powered vehicles on the road to electric vehicles today. More importantly, our ability to expand the supply of electricity is severely constrained by the CO2 hysteria. This means any large scale shift to electric vehicles will cause the price of electricity to increase rapidly. We have seen similar effects in the grain markets where ethanol subsidies increase the price of corn which subsequently increased the cost of other grains as people looked to less expensive alternatives to corn.

Carbon trading is rubbish, you will get no argument from me there.

If I had to pick something I would go for carbon taxes.

[Wilber]

I am not suggesting Hydro is the holy grail of power solutions. I am saying that it cannot be eliminated from a discussion around future energy generation.

It's not being eliminated as far as I know but it isn't without its own issues.

[madmax]

McGuinty's Brother wants to bring in his own tax, like BC.

I stand corrected.

Initially I thought the with the shift of the Federal Liberals following the BC lead, that the Ontario Liberals were ready to follow suit.

Apparently this is not so, but the Ontario Liberals are interested in the position of the Quebec Liberals.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/431833

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is at odds with federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion over a key plan to tax carbon emissions, saying he'd prefer a cap-and-trade system over a carbon tax.

The tax, which is expected to be a central plank in the federal Liberal election platform, is one way to put a price on carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but his "first choice" for Ontario is a cap-and-trade system, McGuinty said today.

"It's one of the things that (Premier) Jean Charest and I are going to continue to talk about, to see if we might build the foundation for a national cap-and-trade system," he said.

[Riverwind]

Some numbers that put this entire issue in perspective:

The Center for Global Development estimates that there are 25,339 power plants around the world that emit carbon dioxide. If the world starts replacing or converting these plants to carbon free energy production at the rate of one plant per day, then it will take 69 years to make all of these power plants carbon neutral, and an 80% conversion would take 56 years. If you'd like assume that most emissions come from the largest plants, you can cut those numbers in half or even by 2/3 and the point remains. At a conversion rate of one plant per week -- using only the top 1/3 emitters -- it would take 145 years to convert 80% of these 1/3 (162 years to convert the entire 1/3).

But energy production from fossil fuel power plants is of course increasing, so these are conservative numbers. The rate of conversion from carbon dioixde emitting power plants currently is negative (they are growing in number, at a rate of, what, several per week? Good data sources appreciated in the comments), so the conversion clock is running in reverse. And, oh yeah, power plant emissions according to CGD are 29% of the global total.

Source: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...back_in_th.html

These numbers also assume that all new generation comes from carbon free sources and that money is no object when it comes to doing the conversion.

These numbers summarize why I think efforts to limit CO2 emissions are an exercise in futility and that our economic resources should be spent on adaptation. Of course, we should be investing heavily in R&D for alternative sources and these calculations could change if there is some technological breakthrough. However, in the absence of such a breakthrough we need to make sure that we don't put our electricity supply at risk with bad policies.

[gc1765]

These numbers summarize why I think efforts to limit CO2 emissions are an exercise in futility and that our economic resources should be spent on adaptation.

Sounds good. So how should we pay for this adaptation? Through a carbon tax perhaps?

[Riverwind]

Sounds good. So how should we pay for this adaptation? Through a carbon tax perhaps?

The wrong way to go the carbon tax results in substantial increases in the cost of electricity. We need energy. Conservation measures only provide marginal help but, more importantly, we need to replace much of our fossil fuel use with electricity use because the rising cost of fossil fuels . This will require a rapid expansion of the electrical generation capacity.

It is important to remember that electricity is a much more flexible energy source because it can be created from many different things. This means we would be less vulnerable to supply problems related to a single commodity like oil. Once we have converted the transportation sector to electricity then it will be relatively easy to replace the CO2 emitting sources with clean sources if AGW turns out to be a concern. In the short term we should focus on making sure this conversion happens quickly by making sure that electricity is as cheap as possible (i.e. we need to keep building CO2 emitting coal plants).

Edited May 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[madmax]

Sounds good. So how should we pay for this adaptation? Through a carbon tax perhaps?

I guess the planet is doomed then. If that is the only solution that can be presented.

[madmax]

The wrong way to go the carbon tax results in substantial increases in the cost of electricity. We need energy. It is important to remember that electricity is a much more flexible energy source because it can be created from many different things.

There is plenty of Hydro Electric Capacity in Northern Ontario, that does not use coal, and is not on the grid to Southern Ontario. On top of that it costs 1kilowatt cent to generate IIRC but charge 6.95kw.

Really, what I see, is people using electricity and all modern conviences including the computer, to bitch whine and complain, that the only way to stop himself from using these devices, is with a tax.

This is presented as such an "easy" solution, that it appears to be no solution at all.

I am waiting to see what occurs in Northern BC compared to Northern Quebec.