Can Canada be Pragmatic about Green energy?

[Guest oiloforegano]

Well, here is my first REAL post, I hope it contributes in some way.

Green energy has become controversial topic in Canada, specifically in Ontario.

Two groups seem to be forming: Those who insist on going instantly renewable, without much regard to the reality of the renewable energy transition, and those who ignore our Earth's perils and would be happy relying on coal forever.

Both positions are dangerous and both will prevent realistic, pragmatic change. I recently found this website that quite soundly takes the middle ground; outlining a better energy plan. Sadly... it is not a government website, but a union website that provides a glimmer of hope.

Here are a few links to some of the most important content:

http://abetterenergyplan.ca

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/getting-smart/video-smart

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/renewables-conservation/video-renewables

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/cares/video-cares

Being new, I'm curious as to everyone's positions on this hot topic? Is it important to you? Or a non issue?

Edited March 22, 2011 by oiloforegano

[Saipan]

I heat my home with renewable energy only. Same with my hot water and most cooking.

Yet I believe in developing oil sands, mainly for national security's sake among other reasons.

[Guest oiloforegano]

I heat my home with renewable energy only. Same with my hot water and most cooking.

Yet I believe in developing oil sands, mainly for national security's sake among other reasons.

That's impressive! How do you do it specifically? How long have you been doing it? Any problems?

Is it bullfrog? Solar panels?

[Saipan]

That's impressive! How do you do it specifically?

Burn spruce and pine, sometimes cedar.

How long have you been doing it?

16 years.

Any problems?

Is it bullfrog? Solar panels?

No problem, and no bull (frog or other)

[guyser]

Burn spruce and pine, sometimes cedar.

[Mr.Canada]

The biggest drawback with green energy is the cost. It's incredibly expensive and the output is very low when compared to the big three....nuclear, coal and water.

I do however think it's a great idea for people to start looking after their own hydro needs. I am currently very interested in those solar panels people have outside their homes. Perhaps instead of waiting for the government to do something we should all take some more personal responsibility and start making changes to our own homes ourselves. I think once enough people stop buying from the grid and become sellers to it that the government would be forced to change it's energy policy. Until then though I'm afraid they'll continue to largely tune it out.

[Keepitsimple]

Well, here is my first REAL post, I hope it contributes in some way.

Green energy has become controversial topic in Canada, specifically in Ontario.

Two groups seem to be forming: Those who insist on going instantly renewable, without much regard to the reality of the renewable energy transition, and those who ignore our Earth's perils and would be happy relying on coal forever.

Both positions are dangerous and both will prevent realistic, pragmatic change.

Both of those groups should be considered radical. I think most thoughtful Canadians favour some sort of transition but know it won't happen overnight. The problem is that the middle road is not very sexy and doesn't sell papers or create an audience on the talk shows. The media needs a crisis - they need the spectacular claims....or they need to report the cranks on the other side. When we really stop to think about it, I think people realize that's where things are going.....stepping back a bit from grand plans of thousands of windmills or 500 square miles of solar panels in a cold country. We're a couple or three decades away from real breakthroughs in sustainable, clean energy. But we can do a lot to clean up how we generate power today. It's unfortunate that we're bogged down in the doomsday scenario of the carbon fiasco when we could invest those billions in clean coal in China, use more natural gas, build new nuclear facilities, and further invest in new technologies. We're on our way to fusion power in about 40 years and that will be an incredible advancement in vast amounts of clean energy. Enter Waldo.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Saipan]

The biggest drawback with green energy is the cost. It's incredibly expensive and the output is very low

True. Solar panels have such a miniscule output I see no reason to bother.

My wood cost me nothing - just very little work. No tree cutting, just chop what the logging company leaves behind. They even pile it close to the road

I may possibly consider little steam engine for a generator next year to charge my back-up batteries.

[Mr.Canada]

True. Solar panels have such a miniscule output I see no reason to bother.

My wood cost me nothing - just very little work. No tree cutting, just chop what the logging company leaves behind. They even pile it close to the road

I may possibly consider little steam engine for a generator next year to charge my back-up batteries.

I haven't done much research yet on the solar panel idea. I just am starting to see them more and more on people roofs and by houses around here. Their may very well be better options ,thanks Saipan.

That wood deal you got going there sounds ideal, you lucky bugger.

Would you need to fabricate the steam engine or is there a ready made option or a partial ready made option? This sounds interesting, post more about it if you can. I very much like the idea of being almost fully self reliant and self sustaining.

[Saipan]

Would you need to fabricate the steam engine or is there a ready made option or a partial ready made option?

All three options are available. I'll most likely build reciprocal engine (I have machine lathe). It's the simplest. I've seen one in a boat instead the regular marine vertical (if you remember African Queen with Boggie) I have lot of info from Steamboating magazine.

[Mr.Canada]

All three options are available. I'll most likely build reciprocal engine (I have machine lathe). It's the simplest. I've seen one in a boat instead the regular marine vertical (if you remember African Queen with Boggie) I have lot of info from Steamboating magazine.

That sounds very neat. If you do this and still are a poster here you should do a log or something like that with pictures. That would very cool to see. I can't be the only one who'd be interested, it's non partisan after all hahaha....

[Bonam]

All three options are available. I'll most likely build reciprocal engine (I have machine lathe). It's the simplest. I've seen one in a boat instead the regular marine vertical (if you remember African Queen with Boggie) I have lot of info from Steamboating magazine.

Building a simple steam engine that works is one thing, building one that is efficient and reliable enough to be worthwhile as an energy source is something else, especially if you are gonna be using wood-burning as the heat source. An interesting project certainly, but a big one. Best of luck with that.

[dre]

True. Solar panels have such a miniscule output I see no reason to bother.

My wood cost me nothing - just very little work. No tree cutting, just chop what the logging company leaves behind. They even pile it close to the road

I may possibly consider little steam engine for a generator next year to charge my back-up batteries.

True. Solar panels have such a miniscule output I see no reason to bother.

Miniscule output? Modern panels are as high as 40% efficient which is about 3 hundred watts per square metre. Most low rise buildings could provide for all their power needs without even covering much of their roof.

[dre]

My wood cost me nothing - just very little work. No tree cutting, just chop what the logging company leaves behind. They even pile it close to the road

Your time has value... so it didnt cost you "nothing".

Track your time and expenses to gather fuel then measure the energy output of your plant when its done... find out how much $ in electricty youve generated based on the rates at your local utility. It would be interesting to see how much youre getting payed per hour for that job.

I bought a wood fired boiler a couple of years ago because theyre a lot more efficient than a fireplace. It has a heat exchanger and a water jacket and all the energy gets turned into hot water right in my boiler room. My house is heated by a network of pex tubes that run through a 1-1/4 inch concrete heatsynch that I poured on top of my subfloor. You can actually buy a until to generate electricity for it as well, but power is still only about 7 cents KWH here so the payback period would be a little too long. But electricity is supposed to go up 50% over the next 5 years then it will definately be worth it.

[Bonam]

Miniscule output? Modern panels are as high as 40% efficient which is about 3 hundred watts per square metre. Most low rise buildings could provide for all their power needs without even covering much of their roof.

That's just not an honest statement. Only the most advanced experimental/space-grade cells are anywhere close to 40% efficient. Even the cells they put on the international space station are only 16% efficient, the advanced ones were too expensive for a $200 billion project. Almost all commercial cells for terrestrial power generation are single junction Silicon cells which are ~16% efficient at ambient temperature in natural sunlight.

I might point out that cells that claim efficiency in the 40% range are not that efficient in natural sunlight, that efficiency is only achieved when they are in concentrated sunlight at levels of 10-100 Suns. That means that to make use of these cells, you need not only the cells themselves but also bulky and expensive solar concentrator optics (lenses or mirrors many many times the size of the solar array) as well as pumped fluid cooling systems (since otherwise solar cells exposed to 10-100 Suns would simply overheat and melt).

Solar cell technology is advancing and we probably will eventually get to the point where we have commercially viable cells that are ~40% efficient in natural sunlight, but we are certainly not there yet.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

That's just not an honest statement. Only the most advanced experimental/space-grade cells are anywhere close to 40% efficient. Even the cells they put on the international space station are only 16% efficient, the advanced ones were too expensive for a $200 billion project. Almost all commercial cells for terrestrial power generation are single junction Silicon cells which are ~16% efficient at ambient temperature in natural sunlight.

I might point out that cells that claim efficiency in the 40% range are not that efficient in natural sunlight, that efficiency is only achieved when they are in concentrated sunlight at levels of 10-100 Suns. That means that to make use of these cells, you need not only the cells themselves but also bulky and expensive solar concentrator optics (lenses or mirrors many many times the size of the solar array) as well as pumped fluid cooling systems (since otherwise solar cells exposed to 10-100 Suns would simply overheat and melt).

Solar cell technology is advancing and we probably will eventually get to the point where we have commercially viable cells that are ~40% efficient in natural sunlight, but we are certainly not there yet.

You started with "thats not an honest statement" but it was. "Modern Panels are AS HIGH as 40%", is an absolutely true statement. New multijunction panels have finally broken the 40% barrier. You ARE right that these panels are cutting edge and still not on the market but I never claimed otherwise.

And even with todays commercially available panels my other statement is also true...

Most low rise buildings could provide for all their power needs without even covering much of their roof.

The objectively false statement made here was "the output is miniscule and not worth bothering with", but for some reason you didnt tackle that one.

I did a 3kw install on an off-grid home here on the island. Two banks on the roof about 40'x6' and a smaller one on the ground at an angle to the sun. It was a pretty servicable solution but a diesel backup was required even though it didnt run much. And this was a few years ago, I doubt those panels were even 10% efficient.

[TimG]

I did a 3kw install on an off-grid home here on the island. Two banks on the roof about 40'x6' and a smaller one on the ground at an angle to the sun. It was a pretty servicable solution but a diesel backup was required even though it didnt run much. And this was a few years ago, I doubt those panels were even 10% efficient.

So did you have a dryer or washing machine? How about a computer? I am betting you did not heat the place with electricity from those panels.

The reality is solar makes no economic sense once you include the cost of the backup generation capabilities.

[dre]

So did you have a dryer or washing machine? How about a computer? I am betting you did not heat the place with electricity from those panels.

The reality is solar makes no economic sense once you include the cost of the backup generation capabilities.

Yes he runs all consumer appliances, but his washer and dryer are a bit smaller. His dryer is about 2000 watts.

The reality is solar makes no economic sense once you include the cost of the backup generation capabilities.

Yeah... HIS system makes no economic sense. It cost about 70 thousand bux for all that kit... but he wanted to live on the lakefront and theres no grid. The diesel backup was actually pretty cheap, its a pretty modest consumer kohler diesel that charge the same bank of batteries his panels charge. What killed him was the cost of the panels. But the cost of panels is coming DOWN fast and the cost of grid energy is going UP fast. The cost per installed watt of PV is less than a tenth of what it was 15 years ago.

[GWiz]

My compliments on your first thread and post...

Well thought out subject matter...

My 2200 sg. ft. living space 5/3 home in Winnipeg is 100% renewable energy...

Geothermal heating and cooling and public utility Hydro Electric...

Love it... 0 carbon footprint... Cheap too in the long run...

My future plan is to eliminate the Hydro by replacing it with my own wind turbine(s) or a wind/solar combination... I'll need to consult with and electrical engineer to figure out what's best for us with the shortest payback period...

Since the Geothermal unit is Canadian made in Ontario, as well as all the local labour that was employed to install it, my "going green" (which incidently wasn't the reason for getting Geothermal) certainly is a great benefit to the economy at every level...

[Saipan]

Building a simple steam engine that works is one thing, building one that is efficient and reliable enough to be worthwhile as an energy source is something else

Quite efficient. For me it would be 100 times more economical than solar panels. And most of all it works during the short dark days of winter when it's needed MOST. And at night

People rely on steam power in boats without any back up. Till recently in voyage over oceans. Unlike gas or even diesel, the steam engine can run for a century without major overhaul.

Btw, even simpler solution is a steam turbine (generator doesn't need reverse) and the "gear up" to hight RMP is already taken care of. Built at home, or faster yet just buy it. One such company selling steam turbines is in Florida (forgot the address now) I was surprised to see how little 4 HP turbine is. You probably know 1 HP = 735 Watts. 3 to 5 HP is all you ever need.

There are steam tractor still running around - not practical for now, but who can see the future. Annual shows are in Branson Missouri (same as the C&W music centre [i'm not fond of:)]

Here's one of MANY links

http://www.manta.com/c/mmjpsmz/tiny-power-inc

http://www.ytmag.com/cgi-bin/showgd.cgi

http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/108351168/Micro_Steam_Turbine_Generators_from_1.html

http://www.thesteamboatingforum.net/forum/index.php

STEAMBOATING

http://www.steamboating.org/

PLANS

http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=steam+engine+plans&aq=1&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=2e63f86f5cfc6d10

And lot more info:

Lindsay's Technical Books

http://www.lindsaybks.com/

I had couple of times the opportunity to drive a locomotive with boiler plate year 1888! It was only short cargo run. What a coincidence that was also a year when two most important rifles/cartridges came out. The .303 British and 8 mm Mauser, the later being an ancestor of all sporting arms today. But that's whole different story.

[GWiz]

I had couple of times the opportunity to drive a locomotive with boiler plate year 1888! It was only short cargo run. What a coincidence that was also a year when two most important rifles/cartridges came out. The .303 British and 8 mm Mauser, the later being an ancestor of all sporting arms today. But that's whole different story.

Interesting segue you made there...

[Bonam]

You started with "thats not an honest statement" but it was. "Modern Panels are AS HIGH as 40%", is an absolutely true statement. New multijunction panels have finally broken the 40% barrier. You ARE right that these panels are cutting edge and still not on the market but I never claimed otherwise.

And even with todays commercially available panels my other statement is also true...

The fact that such panels exist is of little relevance to home installations of solar arrays. I might also mention that there exist nuclear reactors small enough that you could put it in your back yard and power your house as well as sell energy to the grid. The fact that they exist doesn't mean that they are a realistic option for homeowners.

The objectively false statement made here was "the output is miniscule and not worth bothering with", but for some reason you didnt tackle that one.

True, that is also a false statement.

I did a 3kw install on an off-grid home here on the island. Two banks on the roof about 40'x6' and a smaller one on the ground at an angle to the sun. It was a pretty servicable solution but a diesel backup was required even though it didnt run much. And this was a few years ago, I doubt those panels were even 10% efficient.

16% efficient panels have been the standard for decades, and remain the standard now. That is pretty much a physical limit for a Silicon solar cell at ambient temperature in natural sunlight.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Bonam

[GostHacked]

I do however think it's a great idea for people to start looking after their own hydro needs. I am currently very interested in those solar panels people have outside their homes. Perhaps instead of waiting for the government to do something we should all take some more personal responsibility and start making changes to our own homes ourselves. I think once enough people stop buying from the grid and become sellers to it that the government would be forced to change it's energy policy. Until then though I'm afraid they'll continue to largely tune it out.

For once I agree with you. And I've been saying the same thing for some time. The government has less control over you when you are more self sufficient. They can't hold that 'gun' to your head when you can produce your own energy. And if the central grid goes down for whatever reason, you can still at least keep some lights on.

[Bonam]

Quite efficient. For me it would be 100 times more economical than solar panels. And most of all it works during the short dark days of winter when it's needed MOST. And at night

People rely on steam power in boats without any back up. Till recently in voyage over oceans. Unlike gas or even diesel, the steam engine can run for a century without major overhaul.

Oh, of course, a commercially bought steam engine for these various applications can be quite efficient. Just saying building one yourself at home that would be reasonably efficient would be somewhat difficult.

[GostHacked]

My compliments on your first thread and post...

Well thought out subject matter...

My 2200 sg. ft. living space 5/3 home in Winnipeg is 100% renewable energy...

Geothermal heating and cooling and public utility Hydro Electric...

Love it... 0 carbon footprint... Cheap too in the long run...

My future plan is to eliminate the Hydro by replacing it with my own wind turbine(s) or a wind/solar combination... I'll need to consult with and electrical engineer to figure out what's best for us with the shortest payback period...

Since the Geothermal unit is Canadian made in Ontario, as well as all the local labour that was employed to install it, my "going green" (which incidently wasn't the reason for getting Geothermal) certainly is a great benefit to the economy at every level...

Good to hear, can you tell me more about the cost of doing that? I think people are thrown off by the initial cost without understanding the long run benefits and savings of money.