GHG Emissions

[PIK]

Put it this way ,if canada disappeared over nite, nothing would change in the world. When you produce 2%, that is nothing. But since the media and foriegn money have turn alot of peoples minds into jelly, they can't see that we are cutting our own throats for nothing. Canada can't do a thing to help lower these gases, not with the crap china and india are spewling out.

[PIK]

no - in terms of coal, Ontario coal generation plants... the Lakeview Mississauga plant was decommissioned in 2005 (prior to the recessionary based emissions decline). The only impacting change during the period in question was the closing of 2 (of 4) generating units within the Lambton plant in late 2010... by that time, per the OP graphic, emissions are back on the rise again, if ever so slightly. Of course, the rest of Ontario's planned shuttering/conversion of its remaining active coal plants will occur later this year.

but again, as I said, its always quite telling to read the Ontario Liberal bashers tout presumed emission reductions associated with the policy intent to close/convert coal plants! Good on ya, hey Shady!

In other words the more people we can put out of work the better it is for the enviro.

[Boges]

that's not what you said in your earlier post. You used the past tense... and I highlighted you used the past tense. In your latest post you drop a quote which says nothing about (fracked) shale gas.

from your past tense reference, you now shift into a future "faith"... none of which supports your earlier post. In any case, as I said, your now stated future "faith" must contend with those same sources who have (and will, for a period of time) seen/see their U.S. export market of conventional gas reduced, big time. Accordingly, as I suggested, those same sources will be somewhat aggressive in trying to offset that U.S. export loss by extending on the existing distribution of conventional gas... say into Ontario.

Fair enough. Do you you surmise that the increased demand for Natural Gas from the likes of Ontario will be easily met using traditional Natural Gas drilling methods? If so, Huzzah Huzzah!

I don't care where the Natural Gas comes from but it would appear the supply in the future most certainly could, and many would argue, should come from Shale gas.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

Put it this way, if canada disappeared over nite, nothing would change in the world. When you produce 2%, that is nothing. But since the media and foriegn money have turn alot of peoples minds into jelly, they can't see that we are cutting our own throats for nothing. Canada can't do a thing to help lower these gases, not with the crap china and india are spewling out.

of course, ignore the failed record of Harper Conservatives in meeting their pledged/committed emissions reduction target. What type of Canadian development and export marketing will solidify/lock-up decades of ongoing fossil-fuel use/reliance within those markets?

In other words the more people we can put out of work the better it is for the enviro.

see sustainable energy, see job diversification... see "green economy" Hey PIK, what's the longer-term outlook for jobs in an economy tied to non-renewable resources?

[carepov]

In other words the more people we can put out of work the better it is for the enviro.

If Canadian resididents and companies continue to waste energy we will be at a disadvantage to other countries that conserve energy - this will cost us jobs in the long term.

Would you be in favour a corbon tax if every dollar raised from it resulted in a one dollar reduction in the payroll tax?

[carepov]

Put it this way ,if canada disappeared over nite, nothing would change in the world. When you produce 2%, that is nothing. But since the media and foriegn money have turn alot of peoples minds into jelly, they can't see that we are cutting our own throats for nothing. Canada can't do a thing to help lower these gases, not with the crap china and india are spewling out.

Canada should lead the world and set a good example in [sensible and science-based] environmental stewardship.

[Edit: I shouldn't have to add the words but you are partially correct about jelly minds.]

Edited January 13, 2014 by carepov

[waldo]

Fair enough. Do you you surmise that the increased demand for Natural Gas from the likes of Ontario will be easily met using traditional Natural Gas drilling methods? If so, Huzzah Huzzah!

I don't care where the Natural Gas comes from but it would appear the supply in the future most certainly could, and many would argue, should come from Shale gas.

natural gas... only has less emissions than... coal. The source of shale gas affects emissions; example: one of the two B.C. fields has 10% more emissions than conventional gas. In any case, an answer to your question presumes upon whether you believe gas facilitates... or blocks... a path to a greener energy future. Notwithstanding, as before, significant current concerns over methane leakage associated with shale gas fields/extraction/distribution.

[Boges]

natural gas... only has less emissions than... coal. The source of shale gas affects emissions; example: one of the two B.C. fields has 10% more emissions than conventional gas. In any case, an answer to your question presumes upon whether you believe gas facilitates... or blocks... a path to a greener energy future. Notwithstanding, as before, significant current concerns over methane leakage associated with shale gas fields/extraction/distribution.

Yes but if there's a demand for Natural Gas, surely increased regulations to ensure that wells don't leak lots of methane is better than advocating for having the practice banned?

Ontario has discovered that Solar and Wind can't provide a "base-load" and the single-digit percentage of power it does provide is extraordinarily expensive. Also those solutions have their environmental problems as well. How much land would it required to power an entire province like Ontario? How energy intensive is it to produce a solar panel?

We're certainly going to need Natural Gas until an alternative energy is found.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

Yes but if there's a demand for Natural Gas, surely increased regulations to ensure that wells don't leak lots of methane is better than advocating for having the practice banned?

I mentioned methane in the context of this thread. Those seeking bans on fracking don't, typically, have concerns over methane leaks... that is to say, it's not on their immediate radar in terms of concerns over safe water, groundwater impacts, health, toxic waste, etc.

Ontario has discovered that Solar and Wind can't provide a "base-load" and the single-digit percentage of power it does provide is extraordinarily expensive. Also those solutions have their environmental problems as well. How much land would it required to power an entire province like Ontario? How energy intensive is it to produce a solar panel?

We're certainly going to need Natural Gas until an alternative energy is found.

considering Ontario has little solar penetration and 'limited' wind deployment, I'd be interested in you providing a citation that "speaks for Ontario" in that regard.

you seem quite content to "wait on sumthin"... as discussed many times over, storage is the/a real limiting factor at the moment. In terms of your "waiting on sumthin", while storage technologies develop (and smart grid... which is needed/will come regardless), solar and wind deployments can... and should, continue to expand/deploy.

as an aside: Climate Myth: Renewables can't provide baseload power

[Boges]

I mentioned methane in the context of this thread. Those seeking bans on fracking don't, typically, have concerns over methane leaks... that is to say, it's not on their immediate radar in terms of concerns over safe water, groundwater impacts, health, toxic waste, etc.

Increased methane is the only risk of Fracking that I can't reconcile with what I've read, it's a legit concern associated with fracking. The other issues you've discussed are addressed in this article. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

considering Ontario has little solar penetration and 'limited' wind deployment, I'd be interested in you providing a citation that "speaks for Ontario" in that regard.

you seem quite content to "wait on sumthin"... as discussed many times over, storage is the/a real limiting factor at the moment. In terms of your "waiting on sumthin", while storage technologies develop (and smart grid... which is needed/will come regardless), solar and wind deployments can... and should, continue to expand/deploy.

as an aside: Climate Myth: Renewables can't provide baseload power

When one discusses the lowered emissions in Ontario it was and continues to be achieved by phasing out coal and replacing it with Natural Gas. It's not because of the power produced (massively subsidized BTW) by wind and solar.

And this article argues that Wind and Solar are simply replacing power produced by water (ei. Niagara Falls)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/04/20130411-173018.html

Wind power has replaced another renewable -- water.

The amount of hydro electricity generated in 2009 was about 25%. That's gone to 22%. Wind now sits at 3% of production.

Cheaper forms of energy are told to ratchet back production and are replaced by costly wind power, Fedeli said.

Ontario Power Generation is routinely told to spill water at Niagara Falls, to reduce the amount of hydroelectric power generated. That cost $300 million last year.

"When the wind really blows and we can't spill any more water, then we commit the ultimate sin and we call the nuclear plants tell them to shut down and vent the steam that they've created, instead of turning a turbine," Fedeli said.

That happened five times last year at a cost of $80 million.

And that still begs the rhetorical question: How much land will it take to power the province using wind? Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

Increased methane is the only risk of Fracking that I can't reconcile with what I've read, it's a legit concern associated with fracking. The other issues you've discussed are addressed in this article. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

no - I spoke of methane... my reference to the others was with respect to typical concerns raised by others (those seeking bans). A quick glance at your source suggests a most questionable summation on several of those points. We've had different MLW threads on fracking that have addressed several of these... going beyond your journalists "summation" level.

When one discusses the lowered emissions in Ontario it was and continues to be achieved by phasing out coal and replacing it with Natural Gas. It's not because of the power produced (massively subsidized BTW) by wind and solar.

who said it was? I simply respond to what you state.

And this article argues that Wind and Solar are simply replacing power produced by water (ei. Niagara Falls)

sorry... I don't bother to look at/respond to "SunNews straight talk".

And that still begs the rhetorical question: How much land will it take to power the province using wind?

hey... did ya hear... Ontario has grand designs on "offshore" wind farms.

[Accountability Now]

In other words the more people we can put out of work the better it is for the enviro.

It definitely seems this way. The green economy that others refer to largely consist of public transit, conservation and waste treatment....all jobs that we will have regardless of fossil fuel energy or green energy. Of the 2.7 million jobs in the US green economy market, only ~130,000 are from renewable energy. Compare that to the millions of jobs directly and indirectly related to oil/gas.

[PIK]

no - I spoke of methane... my reference to the others was with respect to typical concerns raised by others (those seeking bans). A quick glance at your source suggests a most questionable summation on several of those points. We've had different MLW threads on fracking that have addressed several of these... going beyond your journalists "summation" level.

who said it was? I simply respond to what you state.

sorry... I don't bother to look at/respond to "SunNews straight talk".

hey... did ya hear... Ontario has grand designs on "offshore" wind farms.

Scared of the truth waldo. A smart man will listen to all and the decide, but then when you have a new service that actually prints the facts when it comes to the eco freak annoucements, I can see why youy will not watch. But I love it when people critize a new service right or left and then say I don't watch it, you are amazing.

[waldo]

Scared of the truth waldo. A smart man will listen to all and the decide, but then when you have a new service that actually prints the facts when it comes to the eco freak annoucements, I can see why youy will not watch. But I love it when people critize a new service right or left and then say I don't watch it, you are amazing.

nice to see you take the bait! Unfortunately, referencing your much hallowed "straight talk" from SNN, was the only thing you managed to reply to. As for watching/reading SNN, sorry... I don't watch/read tripe, particularly from the likes of Ezrant et al. Riddle me this PIK, what basis do you use to declare that article, as you state, "the truth"? Is it because it comes from "straight talk SNN"?

Edited January 13, 2014 by waldo

[Boges]

Actually the story was a Christina Blizzard column first published in the Toronto Sun. Queen's Park is her beat, so she's as knowledgeable to the goings on there as one Martin Regg Cohn.

Regardless the quote was taken from the PCs Environment critic. I assume I can ignore anything coming from MPs that are critical of the Federal government then.

The point made is still relevant. Is the Ontario forcing other energy producers to scale back operations, at a cost to the taxpayer, to make room for the unreliable power coming from wind?

And waldo, you sort of gloss over the problem of storage, that's a pretty serious problem. I really think it would be unwise to expand the roles of these renewable forms of power until that problem is solved.

[Boges]

hey... did ya hear... Ontario has grand designs on "offshore" wind farms.

http://www.savethebluffs.ca/

I suspect not in Scarborough, the Liberals need seats there. Why else would they run a candidate that claimed she was pro Scarborough Subway when she had been on record opposing it.

I'm sure they'll find water in places that vote PC to put them though. Assuming, of course, they survive the impending spring vote.

[waldo]

Regardless the quote was taken from the PCs Environment critic. I assume I can ignore anything coming from MPs that are critical of the Federal government then.

I lowered my standards and actually looked at that SunNews article. I'd suggest you read it again... that statement is not directly attributed to, as you say, 'the PCs Environment critic'... there's no, "Fedeli said" reference. Nor is the statement enclosed within quotation marks.

find a reputable source that speaks to hydroelectric water spilling in the context of alternatively "favouring" renewable... and... in the context of export level management.

The point made is still relevant. Is the Ontario forcing other energy producers to scale back operations, at a cost to the taxpayer, to make room for the unreliable power coming from wind?

you're now asking me a/the same question you so adamantly previously posed as fact. Again, I've suggested you bring forward a reputable source (in the two contexts I suggested)

And waldo, you sort of gloss over the problem of storage, that's a pretty serious problem. I really think it would be unwise to expand the roles of these renewable forms of power until that problem is solved.

I didn't gloss over anything. I stated storage was a current technological pursuit... i.e., an existing 'gap'. But only if the generation isn't being applied directly to the grid... and only if the penetration levels are high enough that generation can't be managed through operational procedures.

[venson]

I second one of the views that if Canada didn't exist, not much would change in terms of worldwide GHG emissions. Just take a look at how steadily C02 emissions have been climbing across the world since 1995: http://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/

[Keepitsimple]

Further to Venson's posting, one really does have to ask why all the focus on Canada - why all the millions spent by US-based money to bankroll anti-energy interests in Canada, Canada produces considerably less than 2% of Global emissions. As Andrew Weaver's study showed a couple of years ago - if every ounce of Oil Sands oil could be extracted and burned, global temperature would be affected by .03 (point zero three) of one degree. With China, the US and India burning coal to beat the band - one really does have to step back and ask why Canada is being singled out as a pariah. Why is the US money rolling in? Why is that money not being thrown at their own dirty energy? It's always about the money. We're talking about mis-direction here - put the focus on Canada and protect Obama from having to make the tough decisions - protecting his "green" voter base of hollywood and rich "philanthropists" - while turning a blind eye to fossil fuel production that continue to power the economy. Keep your eye on the pea. Naive eco-kids are being played for suckers - dupes. Seriously, ask yourself - why Canada?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

As Andrew Weaver's study showed a couple of years ago - if every ounce of Oil Sands oil could be extracted and burned, global temperature would be affected by .03 (point zero three) of one degree.

no! The study stated that the burning of the current "economically viable proven reserves" would raise global temperature by 0.03 °C... including the associated emissions from extraction/refining those proven reserves would raise the global temperature by 0.04 °C. Of course, that viability changes/shifts with greater expansion tied to increased markets (consumption/demand)... accordingly, the study also stated that extending on that current viability level will, in turn, raise the global temperature in kind. Per that study, burning the tarsands 'oil-in-place', including extraction/refining, could raise the global temperature up to 0.42 °C.

and, again, significant expansion of the tarsands with accompanying export marketing counters and de-incentivises movement away from fossil-fuels toward alternative sustainable options/pursuits. It keeps... and grows... the dependency on fossil-fuels, locking the extended usage in for decades without regard to increased warming impacts.

With China, the US and India burning coal to beat the band - one really does have to step back and ask why Canada is being singled out as a pariah.

the victim card, Simple? Really? Again, Canada (amongst others) is an enabler... pimping ain't easy, ya know! Equally, Canada get's singled out for its obstructionism at the international level... and its unwillingness to even attempt to comply with the Harper Conservative international emission reduction pledged commitments. Nothing is more symbolic than receiving, 5 years running, the annual Fossil-of-the-Year award... now culminating in receiving a 'Lifetime Unachievement' award at the latest Warsaw COP.

[FutureCanadian]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/canada-carbon-emissions-2030-tar-sands

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Canada carbon emissions to soar by 2030"

Edited January 15, 2014 by FutureCanadian