The Return of the Green Shift!

[TimG]

The real issue is whether or not we are going to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

I am favour of reducing subsidies to wind/solar so they are equal to the current subsidies for the oil sands when calculated based on the amount of useful energy produced.

[ToadBrother]

I am favour of reducing subsidies to wind/solar so they are equal to the current subsidies for the oil sands when calculated based on the amount of useful energy produced.

You do realize that at some point we will run out of oil. Prudence alone suggests that we should be pursuing alternative methods of producing energy, rather than just simply nose diving into permanent supply problems.

[TimG]

You do realize that at some point we will run out of oil. Prudence alone suggests that we should be pursuing alternative methods of producing energy, rather than just simply nose diving into permanent supply problems.

We have lots of gas and coal. There is no economic justification for wind and solar at this time.

[ToadBrother]

We have lots of gas and coal. There is no economic justification for wind and solar at this time.

Because, of course, just finding more stuff to burn and not planning ahead is just such a swell idea.

I have to ask, do you own any oil company stock? I can't think of another reason that you would want to fend off competing energy sources.

[TimG]

Because, of course, just finding more stuff to burn and not planning ahead is just such a swell idea.

Of course, hitech windmills and solar panels don't use any rare resources do they? (wrong)

We have near infinite supply of thorium once they figure out to make commercially viable reactors. If I had to bet on a long term power option it would be on thorium. In the short term the world has A LOT of gas which, unlike wind and solar, can also be used in cars.

In any case, I am not against solar and wind - when they are economic. The problem I have is with the naive people that think shoveling money at an uneconomic technology is going to change the laws of physics.

Edited April 8, 2011 by TimG

[Saipan]

Because many nations in the Global South have large coastal areas that will be subject to flooding from rising sea levels. A 3 foot rise in sea level will inundate 40% of Bangladesh, an already overcrowded nation lacking the infrastructure needed to adapt to this sort of catastrophe.

How do you know "it will"?

Let's say it really will. Then it must have been so in the past when temperatures were higher. Meaning it'll repeat itself.

Thailand is more prosperous and developed than many third world nations, but in the modern age of burning fossil fuels, the overall trend has been that most of the negative external costs of burning coal and oil, have been to burden the poorest nations that have contributed the least to the increase in manmade greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Where exactly does Thailand come into the picture?

[Saipan]

I have to ask, do you own any oil company stock? I can't think of another reason that you would want to fend off competing energy sources.

No need to FEND OFF, just simply let them fairly COMPETE.

I personally use only renewable energy to heat my house.

But I would have no problem with releasing the solar power stored in the coal if the need arise. And there's lot of it and cheap.

[Saipan]

You do realize that at some point we will run out of oil.

I remember when the "scientists" told us [during the Jimmy Carter era of "energy crisis"] that we will be out of oil by mid 80's. That was the time when polution created "equivalent of nuclear winter" and all Midwest rivers were frozen creating problem distributing heating oil by barges.

Fortunately the same polution now creates "global warm up". We needed lot more of that warm up last winter. Winter that is still with us.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Saipan

[bloodyminded]

Because, of course, just finding more stuff to burn and not planning ahead is just such a swell idea.

It's certainly not what one would think of as a "conservative" idea. Definitely not.

[GWiz]

Some of you people here are absolute losers...

EVERYONE from the USA to Europe, Russia to China and the rest of developed Asia are building plants and factories to SUPPLY Wind, Solar, Geothermal and anything else they can think of to SUPPLY future demand...

Canada should just sit idly by to become a CUSTOMER instead of a supplier?

GREAT CALL you morons...

[TimG]

EVERYONE from the USA to Europe, Russia to China and the rest of developed Asia are building plants and factories to SUPPLY Wind, Solar, Geothermal and anything else they can think of to SUPPLY future demand.

There were built to take advantage of government subsidies. Take those away and the plants close. It is nothing but a scam.

[GWiz]

There were built to take advantage of government subsidies. Take those away and the plants close. It is nothing but a scam.

Right

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/worlds-largest-wind-turbine/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html

http://tcbmag.blogs.com/daily_developments/2011/04/3m-adds-solar-products-mfg-plant-in-china.html

I can give you a hundred more links like that from around the world if you like...

[GWiz]

Here's mine... It's ALL Canadian...

http://www.geosmartenergy.com/

[TimG]

I can give you a hundred more links like that from around the world if you like.

Can you give me even one link that shows a wind or solar power installation that does not depend on massive government subsidies? Edited April 8, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

We have near infinite supply of thorium once they figure out to make commercially viable reactors. If I had to bet on a long term power option it would be on thorium. In the short term the world has A LOT of gas which, unlike wind and solar, can also be used in cars.

It's not an issue of "figuring out how to make" thorium reactors. The technical part is basically trivial compared to the difficulty of getting permission to build new types of nuclear reactors. This will be even more difficult now due to public perception turning even more against nuclear after the events in Japan. Consider for example the novel reactor design developed by Babcock and Wilcox:

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

The reactor fits on a railcar, is delivered by rail from the factory to the power generation site, and once fuel is expended, is returned by rail to the company, which reprocesses the fuel and sends back a refueled reactor. No issues of waste pools or on-site refueling. And yet, so far, regulatory agencies have refused to even consider granting approval, not because they think it has a bad design but because they are too busy making life difficult for developers of conventional nuclear reactors.

Nuclear energy has been hopelessly hobbled by regulators. We could have and should have had far more advanced, cleaner, and safer reactors operating by now. Instead, regulatory agencies never even looked at them, and ancient reactor designs are still the ones being built.

[Saipan]

Some of you people here are absolute losers...

EVERYONE from the USA to Europe, Russia to China and the rest of developed Asia are building plants and factories to SUPPLY Wind, Solar, Geothermal and anything else they can think of to SUPPLY future demand...

Canada should just sit idly by to become a CUSTOMER instead of a supplier?

Of course not. We should produce and SELL anything that has demand. It's most basic business law.

[RNG]

Here's the fact you're avoiding: the average individual has a limited range of choices when living in a society. The real issue is whether or not we are going to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. If you're campaigning for the continued subsidizing of tar sands developments instead of renewable energy sources, then you can't undo the damage by reducing your own carbon footprint.

that was mostly meaningless blather.

[RNG]

No need to FEND OFF, just simply let them fairly COMPETE.

I personally use only renewable energy to heat my house.

But I would have no problem with releasing the solar power stored in the coal if the need arise. And there's lot of it and cheap.

Coal is horribly polluting. Just the radiation itself is scary, makes the current Japanese situation small potatoes in comparison.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[GWiz]

Can you give me even one link that shows a wind or solar power installation that does not depend on massive government subsidies?

Who cares about that?

You either compete in a market, by whatever means, or you deplete your financial resources AND independence by becoming purely a customer down the line with no ability to make any money back from being a producer and seller of a product...

That's the choice you have...

Kinda like that old Midas ad:

"Pay me a little now or pay me a whole lot more later on."

PS - Added choice - Canadian JOBS or Jobs in the countries you have to buy it from...

[dre]

True. This platform is talking about "by 2050" though. First, it's important to realize that nothing any politician in 2011 promises to happen by 2050 has any chance of actually being carried out, even if that politician sincerely wants it to happen. Second, it's all a matter of technological change. By 2050, our civilization will be unrecognizable to the people of today because technology will have altered it so profoundly. Our CO2 emissions may well be down a lot by then anyway, or they may be up a thousandfold but be prevented from having any climactic impact, depending on what kind of technologies we develop.

Second, it's all a matter of technological change. By 2050, our civilization will be unrecognizable to the people of today because technology will have altered it so profoundly

Thats only true in some areas. Technology has failed to transform our energy and transportation system in way so profound that makes it unrecognizable. Go down to a car dealer today and most of the vehicles there very similar to cars sold 50 years ago, and use the exact same technology just with little tweaks and enhancements. Its just been improved a bit. The fuel supply chain looks virtually identical to how it did 50 years. You have wells, rigs, tankers, filling stations etc.

The problem isnt technology its capital. Meaningful energy reform is so massively expensive that we only work on it when we are forced to, and we do stuff piece-meal. Moving into the next energy age will be the hardest and most expensive project the human race has ever attempted.

This is compounded by the fact that yesterdays industrial powerhouses are flat broke. My guess is that youll see wide spread use of the fossil fuel driven internal combustion engine for another 100 years even though technologically its already a relic.

[Bonam]

Thats only true in some areas. Technology has failed to transform our energy and transportation system in way so profound that makes it unrecognizable. Go down to a car dealer today and most of the vehicles there very similar to cars sold 50 years ago, and use the exact same technology just with little tweaks and enhancements. Its just been improved a bit. The fuel supply chain looks virtually identical to how it did 50 years. You have wells, rigs, tankers, filling stations etc.

Not over the last 50 years, but over the last 100 or 150 it certainly has transformed our energy and transportation systems unrecognizably. Technological progress accelerates. What took 100 years before will take less next time.

The problem isnt technology its capital. Meaningful energy reform is so massively expensive that we only work on it when we are forced to, and we do stuff piece-meal. Moving into the next energy age will be the hardest and most expensive project the human race has ever attempted.

Only when we're "forced" to? What forced us to start using electricity?

This is compounded by the fact that yesterdays industrial powerhouses are flat broke. My guess is that youll see wide spread use of the fossil fuel driven internal combustion engine for another 100 years even though technologically its already a relic.

I dunno about 100 years. But it's not "already a relic". The internal combustion engine is one of the most efficient engines that can be miniaturized to the needed scale for personal vehicles while simultaneously using a chemical energy source with one of the highest available energy densities (gasoline).

Other heat engine cycles are either only efficient when built on a very large scale (i.e. regenerated/reheated Rankine cycles for large reactors), or have lower power density (Sterling cycles), or require expensive and fragile turbomachinery (for the cycles used in jet engines).

You can do better by going electric, but the battery technology for that is only now starting to become feasible. You can do better with a fuel cell, but that requires denser hydrogen storage to be worthwhile. You can do better with a nuclear energy source, but that would never be approved for personal vehicles.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Bonam

[Saipan]

Coal is horribly polluting. Just the radiation itself is scary

What radiation?

Must be why some of the old blacksmiths live so long. Right next to open coal fire. Until recently it was the main home heating fuel in Europe.

[Saipan]

We can look into the future, interplanetary travel, and more.... maybe in the year 2001.

See Odyssey 2001

[WIP]

How do you know "it will"?

Because the ice sheets in Greenland are pushing ice into the sea. It's the melting of land-based glaciers that leads to sea level rise. The Antarctic ice sheets are larger, and have not received as much heat energy as the Arctic, but they are on the move also. It is the melting of Antarctic ice sheets that will have the most devastating effects on sea level rise. A page at Skeptical Science deals with the issues involved with measuring sea levels, which are not exactly uniform across all of the oceans on the planet. The studies of tide data show conclusively that sea levels are rising, and at an accelerating rate. And the main source is the land-based ice sheets which will eventually melt even if the brakes are put on rising carbon levels now: Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting, Rate Unknown

Let's say it really will. Then it must have been so in the past when temperatures were higher. Meaning it'll repeat itself.

The difference is that they were prior to civilization and before there were even modern humans on Earth. For most of human history, we have been living through an inter-glacial period, where sea levels have been slowly rising, since the maximum of the last ice age. So, that last time a swampy, low level region like the Florida Everglades was under water, was before there were any people around to be concerned about it! When Florida becomes threatened by rising sea levels, it is possible that Florida and other coastal areas can take the steps necessary for adaptation, as the Dutch are doing over in the Netherlands to deal with future large increases when the Antarctic starts losing ice on a grand scale. But there is no capacity in a poor nation struggling to feed its large population - like Bangladesh, to build expensive, large scale sea walls. They may literally end up trapped and condemned to death as rising seas bring salt water into low lying rice paddies. The Indian Government is building a wall around it's eastern borders to stop the flow of Bangladeshi refugees that are already trying to leave for various reasons. Of all of the places on Earth, their future looks the bleakest and most disturbing.

Where exactly does Thailand come into the picture?

Somewhere in the middle! They are not as wealthy as Australia - the most economically developed nation in the Global South...and one that is already having to deal with the destructive effects of climate change, since their agriculture has been severely degraded over the last decade due to extreme floods and droughts. At least nations like Australia and Thailand have the resources to buy food on the world market as global food prices rise; but, the poorest nations do not have the purchasing power to feed their populations from foreign food sources.

[TimG]

and one that is already having to deal with the destructive effects of climate change, since their agriculture has been severely degraded over the last decade due to extreme floods and droughts.

The hypothetical link between CO2 and floods and droughts is extremely tenenous at best. The suggestion that the mere 0.7 degC rise has result in observable effects is outright absurd. What we are seeing is a combination of high population + weather. Nothing more. Edited April 9, 2011 by TimG