TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 How would we do this?Do a cost benefit analysis on a case by case basis. In places like Hawaii that cost benefit could show solar PV is the best option. Natural gas in Alberta, Hydro in BC or Nuclear Power in Ontario. The point is to stop trying to mandate or outlaw specific sources of power and accept that some negative effects are inevitable no matter what the source. We could probably go 15% wind everywhere in Canada but only if the it makes sense without subsidies and there has to be a clear understanding that too much variable power is very bad for the grid. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 I already explained what I meant in a post above but I guess any answer with any nuance is too complex for you to understand. I guess that was pretty obvious considering that you were unable to construct a coherent response to any of my arguments. Insults and link dropping seem to be the limit of your capabilities. What??? You've explained nothing. C'mon bud. You claimed that the manifesto would reduce us to the standard of living of Venezuela. Either back it up with some figures or admit you just made it up. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Do a cost benefit analysis on a case by case basis. In places like Hawaii that cost benefit could show solar PV is the best option. Natural gas in Alberta, Hydro in BC or Nuclear Power in Ontario. The point is to stop trying to mandate or outlaw specific sources of power and accept that some negative effects are inevitable no matter what the source. We could probably go 15% wind everywhere in Canada but only if the it makes sense without subsidies and there has to be a clear understanding that too much variable power is very bad for the grid. Please. Do tell me who has tried to "mandate or outlaw specific sources of power". Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
WIP Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 We have to dramatically reduce the production of green house gases. The question is how. Solar and wind are not yet viable on a large scale. Fusion is still a long way off if viable at all. Nuclear power is the only alternative currently available. It is particularly beneficial to western Canada, since it is the Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel. The conversion to nuclear power will give the world's economy a tremendous shot in the arm, and will allow us to dispense with many of the inhibitors on energy use we are now facing, such as carbon taxes, and pipelines. The big stumbling block for solar and wind has been the problem of continuous power....which is expected to be 24/7 in the west. Alternative energy is really taking off in third world countries where power supplies have always been precarious and intermittent. I haven't read on the subject of late: but I've heard the claim that the main reason why a new series of large, coal-fired generating stations have been put on hold in India recently, is not the smog or other environmental problems as much as potential investors are becoming concerned that increasing numbers of lower class Indians buying solar cells and setting up cheap solar cookers, will keep chipping away at the profit potential of large scale generating stations. In much of Africa, people want to buy solar cookers and solar-powered lamps that are cheaper over the long term and safer than kerosene lamps and charcoal cookers. They will never be on the grid in rural regions of the Continent, so they are making the leap past conventional technology to alternatives, in much the same way that they have rapidly adopted cellphones and will never go through the stage of setting up landlines. When it comes to nuclear, I get the feeling that there is so much money still out there to lobby for building nuclear power, that the claims of 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plants solving all of our energy problems, are just overhyped BS! Conventional nuclear is extremely costly and takes a long time to build...and they have high carbon footprints when the huge quantity of concrete needed for containment structures is factored in. I figure that if nuclear was really as wonderful as its advocates project, they wouldn't need governments to pay for the costs of building them and underwriting the insurance costs in case of disaster. If nuclear is the only option, I think it means there are no options left. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Since this thread has no connection anymore with the Leap Manifesto, nor with inference that it is connected with the NDP...as claimed in the OP taking propaganda straight from CTV/Global, Globe&Mail headlines; I want to refresh and go back to that idiotic and pointless claim and show just how far the NDP is from really dealing with environment issues: Naomi Klein has a message for Tom Mulcair: Keep the oilsands in the ground Author and activist Naomi Klein says Canadian politicians need to take radical steps to end the development of the oilsands and immediately move toward a moratorium on fossil fuel extraction........................................ Klein is one of the signatories of the recently released Leap Manifesto — a bold document that calls for all of Canada's electricity to be generated from renewable sources in just 20 years and a fossil fuel-free economy by mid-century. It also has wider social goals such as a guaranteed annual income and universal child care. Some of those goals might overlap with what the NDP is pitching in this election campaign, but Klein said party leader Tom Mulcair shares the blame with other political leaders for ignoring the climate crisis. "I think the problem with political campaigns is that politicians don't like those hard choices. "You have the opposition leaders [Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau] competing with one another over who will do a better job building tarsands pipelines," Klein said, calling it a sad state of affairs. "What is politically realistic in this moment, or what is considered politically realistic, is physically catastrophic," she said. Some members of the NDP have voiced their concern with the current pace of oilsands development and pipeline construction including the NDP star candidate for the riding of Toronto Centre. "We saw this with Linda McQuaig, who dared to say a simple truth: a lot of people think we need to keep the vast majority of the tarsands in the ground. That [view] reflects a consensus among a great many climate scientists, yet she was pilloried just for saying the truth," she said............................................................... You see! Everyone wants to wear green......even Stephen Harper. But, none of the big three party leaders demonstrate any willingness or ability to educate the public on environment issues and crises, and they will sign on to everything that's politically popular....even turning Northern Alberta into something that looks like Mordor! The difference between the three on environment is how closely they want to be seen next to oil executives, not real differences in environmental policy! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Build better, safer nuclear reactors. Yeah. Reactors that don't take a decade to build. And don't require huge government subsidies. And are insurable. And don't produce wastes that are toxic for thousands of years. And aren't huge nuclear bombs in waiting. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) But, none of the big three party leaders demonstrate any willingness or ability to educate the public on environment issues and crisesPeople who do not share your 'end of the world is nigh' mindset are not necessarily less educated about the issues. This simply have different values and priorities and place less weight on hypothetical futures that may or may not occur and place more weight on risks that can harm people living today. Edited September 20, 2015 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 People who do not share your 'end of the world is nigh' mindset are not necessarily less educated about the issues. This simply have different values and priorities and place less weight on hypothetical futures that may or may not occur and place more weight on risks that can harm people living today. You mean people who have a vested interest in the status quo and would prefer not to face reality. You certainly don't mean the vast majority of scientists, particularly the 70 Canadian scholars who think it is quite feasible to move to a low-carbon economy. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) You certainly don't mean the vast majority of scientists, particularly the 70 Canadian scholars who think it is quite feasible to move to a low-carbon economy.The opinion of scientists on how society should prioritize different values deserves no more weight than anyone else's opinion. In this case, the vast majority of the "scholars" appear to have no expertise in the fields required to have an informed opinion on "the feasibility of moving to a low carbon economy" which makes you quite the hypocrite to appeal the the authority of people with no authority. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 The opinion of scientists on how society should prioritize different values deserves no more weight than anyone else's opinion. In this case, the vast majority of the "scholars" appear to have no expertise in the fields required to have an informed opinion on "the feasibility of moving to a low carbon economy" which makes you quite the hypocrite to appeal the the authority of people with no authority. The scholars are a broad cross-section of different sciences from sociology to business to engineering to climate science. Which is exactly what is called for when looking at an issue this broad. Your posts are nothing but your own opinions. Given that you've admitted having a vested interest in the current means of generating electricity, I find your accusing me of being a hypocrite rich. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) The scholars are a broad cross-section of different sciences from sociology to business to engineering to climate science. Which is exactly what is called for when looking at an issue this broad.I see a lot of biologists and sociologists. I saw no one with obvious expertise on generating and delivering electricity. Without that expertise the report is nothing but hot air. If you want a credible report look here: http://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf What makes it credible is it does the math and explains any assumptions. It is none of the hand waving BS in the reports you seem to prefer. Now I am sure you will like the headline conclusions but the report itself does not actually address the cost issues. It only looks at the technical feasibility and finds that without nuclear it is not going to happen. Your posts are nothing but your own opinions.And your posts are nothing but your opinions. What is your point? I guess you are the type of person who refuses to go to a doctor because they "have vested interest in the medical industry" and prefer to get your medical advice from a political scientist. Personally, I prefer getting my medical advice from qualified people even if they have a bias. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG Quote
WIP Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 People who do not share your 'end of the world is nigh' mindset are not necessarily less educated about the issues. This simply have different values and priorities and place less weight on hypothetical futures that may or may not occur and place more weight on risks that can harm people living today. It depends what sort of 'education' you're talking about. The problem with your side (and I mean everyone from equivocators to outright deniers) is you seem to think that we as a species are somehow separate from the world we live in and not subject to the natural forces of nature...even at a time when those forces are rearing up and biting many people in the ass already! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
dre Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 The opinion of scientists on how society should prioritize different values deserves no more weight than anyone else's opinion. In this case, the vast majority of the "scholars" appear to have no expertise in the fields required to have an informed opinion on "the feasibility of moving to a low carbon economy" which makes you quite the hypocrite to appeal the the authority of people with no authority. Even if they had authority you would just claim they were bias, or endorsing the idea based on pressure from their peers or to enrich themselves. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 Even if they had authority you would just claim they were bias, or endorsing the idea based on pressure from their peers or to enrich themselves.If the people with such authority believed it was possible the market would already be driving the move away from fossil fuels without much prodding from government. The only reason there is even a policy debate is because moving away from fossil fuels is not technically feasible at this time and there are a lot of people with religious beliefs that make it difficult to accept that reality. Quote
dre Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 If the people with such authority believed it was possible the market would already be driving the move away from fossil fuels without much prodding from government. The only reason there is even a policy debate is because moving away from fossil fuels is not technically feasible at this time and there are a lot of people with religious beliefs that make it difficult to accept that reality. Theres no reason for the market to do anything other than whats the cheapest , without either incentives or penalties. This is why it took 70 years for them to stop putting lead in gasoline, and its also why nobody builds nuclear plants. As for moving away from fossil fuels not being feasible... It doesnt need to be. You just need to make a market for clean energy and the private sector will figure the rest out. Maybe they will build uranium hex plants or thorium plants, or maybe they will build solar or wind facilities, or maybe a mix of both. But without an incentive they will just keep running the plants they have now. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) You just need to make a market for clean energy and the private sector will figure the rest out.Delusional thinking. Politicians do not have magic wands and if the companies are forced into doing something that makes no sense they will devote their efforts to circumventing the system (VW anyone?). You need to solve the technical feasibility problem first. Solve that and all the market would need is a nudge. Ignore that problem and you will piss away billions on "solutions" that do nothing by make carpetbaggers rich. Edited September 23, 2015 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.