Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I flew up and down the west coast for years (low level in a helicopter). There are lots of waterfalls right into the ocean.

There has even been suggestions that this water be tankered and sent down to California.

Point is, there are lots of rivers that can be turned into hydro sources.

No doubt you have but how accessible are they? How many km of power line will you have to build through mountainous terrain to get a comparatively small amount of power to the grid? You can't tanker electricity.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity

Edited August 14, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No doubt you have but how accessible are they? How many km of power line will you have to build through mountainous terrain to get a comparatively small amount of power to the grid? You can't tanker electricity.

 

We run electrical lines thousands of km right now.  There's talk of running lines all the way across the mountians to alberta to power their grind.

it doesn't matter in the slightest where they are -  they've got these things called chainsaws and buldozers now, we can get to it.

 

Let me guess - now you're going to whimper about how we shouldn't cut down a tree.

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No doubt you have but how accessible are they? How many km of power line will you have to build through mountainous terrain to get a comparatively small amount of power to the grid? You can't tanker electricity.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity

How many kms of hydro lines are needed by:

Hydro Quebec in the Manicouagan Valley that goes to New York? And other Quebec Hydro projects that send power to New York and Ontario

Or the Muskrat River dam in Labrador?

Or from James bay.

Seriously sir, think about your nonsensical questions.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

We run electrical lines thousands of km right now.  There's talk of running lines all the way across the mountians to alberta to power their grind.

it doesn't matter in the slightest where they are -  they've got these things called chainsaws and buldozers now, we can get to it.

 

Let me guess - now you're going to whimper about how we shouldn't cut down a tree.

Sure but not a spider web of lines from hundreds of run of river projects in the middle of nowhere. And you want to mow down thousands of trees and dig up hundreds of km of forest to get them there.

[Aristides]

You aren't talking about adapting, you are talking about destroying a lot of the province's ecology so you don't have to adapt any of your own behaviour.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Sure but not a spider web of lines from hundreds of run of river projects in the middle of nowhere. And you want to mow down thousands of trees and dig up hundreds of km of forest to get them there.

ABSOLUTELY a spider web of lines.  We're ALREADY a spider web of lines - they criss cross the province in every direction and go everywhere. Have you never been outside the city or something?  go back and look at that map i posted and then look at how many of those locations are within a dozen clicks of power lines now.

It is the easiest thing in the world.  And of course you start off with the ones closest to where the power is needed -the first nations have been doing this for ages very successfully and would do more if hydro would stop being a hinderance. Projects like the Hupacasath First Nation run of river have been very successfful

 

 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You aren't talking about adapting, you are talking about destroying a lot of the province's ecology so you don't have to adapt any of your own behaviour.

Ahh yes - there's the "dont' cut a tree' argument.  I notice you haven't cut off your power yet.

 It is adaption - the province's ecology will barely notice and as any naturalist or hunter will tell you cutting power line paths increases biodiversity by making it easy for animals to move between areas, just like greenbelts do.

There is nothing wrong with hydro electricity.  It's a viable and clean source of energy .

Enough of your fake complaints. Hydro is plentiful and environmentally friendly - and it's what we in bc have been using for ages and will be using for ages.  If we supplement it with a bit of wind or solar here and there great.  In 50 years we can re-evaluate, maybe some new tech will have come along that's even cleaner or better by then, but we're not creating much in the way of ghg's to power our lives now.

China burns coal and oil for the most part.

And yet you want to let china do what it wants, but shut down development of hydro in bc.  To save the planet.

[Aristides]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ABSOLUTELY a spider web of lines.  We're ALREADY a spider web of lines - they criss cross the province in every direction and go everywhere. Have you never been outside the city or something?  go back and look at that map i posted and then look at how many of those locations are within a dozen clicks of power lines now.

It is the easiest thing in the world.  And of course you start off with the ones closest to where the power is needed -the first nations have been doing this for ages very successfully and would do more if hydro would stop being a hinderance. Projects like the Hupacasath First Nation run of river have been very successfful

 

 

No we don’t, you are talking about connecting dozens of small sources dotted all over the map in remote mountainous terrain to the existing grid. We have not been doing that.

Some will be quite viable but nowhere near the thousands claimed.

[Aristides]

They will be most useful as local power sources for communities with  good sites close by, Bella Coola might be an example.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Aristides

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You aren't talking about adapting, you are talking about destroying a lot of the province's ecology so you don't have to adapt any of your own behaviour.

Yeah, lets clear an area and build nuclear reactors.

Oh wait.... there will be lots and lots of high tension wires emanating from them too.

Or, lets clear acres and acres of land and put up solar panels...oh yeah, include the wires from them too.

Well, wind turbines, crap, they need wires too.

OK aristides, let me know when we have wireless electricity to every building in this country.

You know, when you have no valid point, let alone solution, you should quit

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by ExFlyer
spelling corection

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No we don’t, you are talking about connecting dozens of small sources dotted all over the map in remote mountainous terrain to the existing grid. We have not been doing that.

We have absolutely been doing that - how do you think we get to the thousands of small towns and communities, mining sites, first nations reserves etc etc etc etc.

we have tens of thousands of connections like that right now .  How did you THINK we got power around the province? There is 18,000 km of power lines right at the moment!  This would be nothing!

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by CdnFox

[Aristides]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Y&eah, lets clear an area and build nuclear reactors.

Oh wait.... there will be lots and lots of high tension wires emanating from them too.

Or, lest clear acres and acres of land and put up solar panes...oh yeah, include the wires form them too.

Well, wind turbines, crap, they need wires too.

OK aristides, let me know when we have wireless electricity to every building in this country.

You know, when you have no valid point, let alone solution, you should quit

 

 

Sure but we decide the reactor locations, not nature and can put them where they are most practical.

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Sure but we decide the reactor locations, not nature and can put them where they are most practical.

Yup, in your neighbourhood?

To your whining point, there will still be lots or wires coming from them.

You do know we decide where we put hydro dams too eh??

Edited August 14, 2023 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Sure but we decide the reactor locations, not nature and can put them where they are most practical.

I think you'll find nature decides where that goes a lot.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Yup, in your neighbourhood?

To your whining point, there will still be lots or wires coming from them.

You do know we decide where we put hydro dams too eh??

No we don’t we put them where nature put the water and the terrain that makes dams possible. We adapt to that.

I just don’t believe there is some sort of silver bullet that will solve all our problems, it will be a combination of things, including changing some of our own behaviours. Hydro will be another.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Aristides

[Army Guy]

 

It seems EV owners are not all that happy with their purchases, despite what the EV companies have been saying...It seems the tech has not fully there yet....

Ford's CEO had a charging 'reality check' on his electric F-150 Lightning road trip (msn.com)

Stranded F-150 Lightning Owner Calls EVs "Biggest Scam Of Modern Times" (msn.com)

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I just don’t believe there is some sort of silver bullet that will solve all our problems,

Nobody said there was.  You just said we have no more hydro capacity and then just shat on the idea of hydro power in general.

Putting hundreds of smaller generating locations close to the communities who use the power rather than one big one stuck somewhere in the middle of the province where it's thousands of km to the end user makes far far far more sense. Less chance of interruption, easier to maintain.

Oh - and nuclear power was outlawed in bc and the NDP just announced they have no plans to change that or ever allow it. So once again the 'environmentalist' parties reject clean energy.

[Aristides]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Nobody said there was.  You just said we have no more hydro capacity and then just shat on the idea of hydro power in general.

Putting hundreds of smaller generating locations close to the communities who use the power rather than one big one stuck somewhere in the middle of the province where it's thousands of km to the end user makes far far far more sense. Less chance of interruption, easier to maintain.

Oh - and nuclear power was outlawed in bc and the NDP just announced they have no plans to change that or ever allow it. So once again the 'environmentalist' parties reject clean energy.

You said there are thousands of possible sites for run of river when in fact the source you provided found only 121 of the hundreds they identified that were viable to produce power at a reasonable cost and that was based on computer data, not actually inspecting the sites. Yes I think run of river will be most useful as a local power supply, less so to supply the grid. 

The NDP will not be in power forever and eventually they will have to deal with reality, as will we all. If we have to double and probably triple our generating capacity in future, we will need a variety of sources.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You said there are thousands of possible sites for run of river when in fact the source you provided found only 121 of the hundreds they identified that were viable to produce power at a reasonable cost and that was based on computer data, not actually inspecting the sites. Yes I think run of river will be most useful as a local power supply, less so to supply the grid.

 

 

No, those are the most promising sites given the power needs.  You start from the best and work down.  Just like we identified 5 great locations for power dams on the peace river and started with the best, not the worst.

I'm sure run of river will play a role, unless other tech shows up. BC hydro has to get its' crap together more, they block a lot of stuff, but there's little doubt it'll be a big deal.

Quote

The NDP will not be in power forever and eventually they will have to deal with reality, as will we all. If we have to double and probably triple our generating capacity in future, we will need a variety of sources.

THey will probably buy power from the states, who probably won't be using hydro.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by CdnFox

[Aristides]

Quote

By calculating unit energy costs, KWL was also able to highlight projects that would be the most cost-effective to pursue and discovered 121 potential sites within BC where energy production would cost less than $100 per megawatt-hour.

Quote

 

Under these agreements, BC Hydro pays an average of about $100 per megawatt hour.

This is higher than the market value of the energy, which is about $30 per megawatt hour on average, and higher than the average cost of heritage generation, which is about $32 per megawatt hour.

 

 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Aristides said:

was also able to highlight projects that would be the most cost-effective to pursue and discovered 121 potential sites within BC where energy production would cost less than $100 per megawatt-hour.

Yeah - they found the 121 cheapest places.   And?

Those are not the ONLY places. And given the cost per megawatt hour that the site c dam is going to cost it's still dirt cheap.

Oil and natural gas is cheaper - want to go to that?

Nukes are about 5 times that price with the cost of the reactor built in.

It's always going to be more expensive to build new infrastructure rather than go with existing stuff.

What's your point? We should give up on clean energy because it costs too much? You'd rather go back to coal?

Or are you just blathering like a complete re-tard because you can't figure out what else to do.

End of the day - there are THOUSANDS of places to build run of the river projects.

You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore do you. God you're a freaking mess.

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:Yeah - they found the 121 cheapest places.   And?

Those are not the ONLY places. And given the cost per megawatt hour that the site c dam is going to cost it's still dirt cheap.

Oil and natural gas is cheaper - want to go to that?

Nukes are about 5 times that price with the cost of the reactor built in.

It's always going to be more expensive to build new infrastructure rather than go with existing stuff.

What's your point? We should give up on clean energy because it costs too much? You'd rather go back to coal?

Or are you just blathering like a complete re-tard because you can't figure out what else to do.

End of the day - there are THOUSANDS of places to build run of the river projects.

You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore do you. God you're a freaking mess.

I’m saying they could only find 121 sites that could produce power at three times the cost of legacy power. God only knows what it would cost from those THOUSANDS  other sites you talk about.

I’m also not saying we should give up on developing clean power but how clean is it if we butcher the environment to do it. It will take a lot more than just hydro to provide the kind of power we need to transition out of fossil fuels. Hydro  provides only just over 20% of BC’s total energy consumption, almost all the rest comes from fossil fuels.

[I am Groot]

On 8/13/2023 at 2:23 PM, Aristides said:

Some people do for sure but they conveniently ignore they are helping support that burning every time they go to Walmart, Canadian Tire etc.

You make it seem as though it were a relatively simple matter to buy something that isn't from China. In many categories, it's extremely difficult. I've tried. Whether it's shoes or sound bars you find one after another after another that would be perfect and then discover they're from China and have to keep looking. You need to have both excess time and excess money to afford the luxury of avoiding Chinese products. I mean, even most of the ingredients that go into our prescription and other drugs come from China. That's where the drugs themselves aren't manufactured there.

[I am Groot]

On 8/13/2023 at 3:59 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

We should all be doing our part to reduce GHG but Canada shouldn't throttle its economy far beyond what the US and China are doing just so our politicians can pat themselves on the back.  Those countries need to lead.  There's no reason for Canada to take a big hit economically when the environmental gains are negligible.

The purpose of all this isn't to help the environment. The purpose is so Trudeau can have cheers and accolades rained down upon him by a hysterically delighted climate crowd. It's so he can pose and preen and smirk while he's praised for his devotion to lowering CO2 emissions.

Anyone with basic arithmetic skills can see, as you have, that for all the hundreds of billions we're to spend the gains would be virtually undetectable on a world level.

On 8/13/2023 at 5:23 PM, Aristides said:

What do you suggest they do?

Build nuclear power plants instead of nuclear missiles, submarines and aircraft carriers? 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

You make it seem as though it were a relatively simple matter to buy something that isn't from China. In many categories, it's extremely difficult. I've tried. Whether it's shoes or sound bars you find one after another after another that would be perfect and then discover they're from China and have to keep looking. You need to have both excess time and excess money to afford the luxury of avoiding Chinese products. I mean, even most of the ingredients that go into our prescription and other drugs come from China. That's where the drugs themselves aren't manufactured there.

It's not a simple matter but we should recognize that supplying our wants and needs are part of the reason Chinese emissions are high.