Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

So show we where the proposed Sites D and E are or p**s off.

Shut the eff up. Nobody cares what you' think -  you're clearly a joke.  Every single thing you've said proved to be wrong, but you still keep sealioning.   "Duh it's in alberta Derp".  

You are a prime example of why people who talk about 'climate change' should just be ignored. All they have is lies it would seem. If it was a genuine concern you'd be happy to present the truth instead which is clearly not the case. I guess even YOU don't believe in Climate change as a threat.

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Shut the eff up. Nobody cares what you' think -  you're clearly a joke.  Every single thing you've said proved to be wrong, but you still keep sealioning.   "Duh it's in alberta Derp".  

You are a prime example of why people who talk about 'climate change' should just be ignored. All they have is lies it would seem. If it was a genuine concern you'd be happy to present the truth instead which is clearly not the case. I guess even YOU don't believe in Climate change as a threat.

Where are Sites D & E.

Ya, I don't believe in climate change just because I don't think hydro alone will provide all the power we will need to replace fossil fuels. What a tool.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Where are Sites D & E.

 

Right where i told you they are.   Are you unable to read? Do i need to use crayons? Is english a 3rd language? Were you dropped as a child? Did your mom drink a lot during pregnancy?  I've told you like 4 times now

And if you believed climate change was real you wouldn't feel the need to lie constantly, you'd just present the truth. You clearly don't.

If you have to lie to make a point then you don't have  a very good point. 

So let  me guess - you're one of those little girl-boys who's going to keep posting the same question i've answered over and over because you're  crying about looking like a loser and you can't think of anything better to say?

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Right where i told you they are.   Are you unable to read? Do i need to use crayons? Is english a 3rd language? Were you dropped as a child? Did your mom drink a lot during pregnancy?  I've told you like 4 times now

And if you believed climate change was real you wouldn't feel the need to lie constantly, you'd just present the truth. You clearly don't.

If you have to lie to make a point then you don't have  a very good point. 

So let  me guess - you're one of those little girl-boys who's going to keep posting the same question i've answered over and over because you're  crying about looking like a loser and you can't think of anything better to say?

Where! Where!. Effing Where!

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Where! Where!. Effing Where!

Told you numerous times. The same place they were the last time i answered.

And i totally called it about you being a little girl-boy who's having a mental break down over your lies didn't I  

What kind of loser repetatively asks the same question after it's been answered again and again. And you're sounding hysterical.  I can pretty much hear the tears as you type.

[Aristides]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Told you numerous times. The same place they were the last time i answered.

And i totally called it about you being a little girl-boy who's having a mental break down over your lies didn't I  

What kind of loser repetatively asks the same question after it's been answered again and again. And you're sounding hysterical.  I can pretty much hear the tears as you type.

You did not. You said five suitable locations for dams had been found, that doesn't mean five dams can be built. All those suitable locations could be within a fairly short stretch of river.

So where are they?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You did not. You said five suitable locations for dams had been found, that doesn't mean five dams can be built. All those suitable locations could be within a fairly short stretch of river.

 

Nope - report said they were all viable locations for the future.  Sorry. And distance between doesn't really matter although it could determine size depending how far back you want the ponding to go but generally - release from one dam and the next catches it.  IF the terrain would support it you could have dozens .  And each of these locations are many KM apart. The distance between c and e is over 40 km as i recall - d is in between them.

And of course - that was ONLY with the tech available in the 70's.  THey might be able to build even more now on the same river. Distance isn't the problem.

ANd lets face it - you couldn't even figure out they were in bc.  You're hardly qualified to say how far they have to be apart ROFLMAO!!!!  But if you like go look up the original report.  

 

And here's more fun - MOST of these sites of existing dams below could have another one on the same waterway. That's quite a few. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_British_Columbia

 

So what's happening here is you look like an !diot, and you don't LIKE to look like an !diot - so you're desperately and frantically trying to find SOME POSSIBLE "loophole' or detail you can conceivably look 'correct' on.  THat's why you're so desperate and being so weird.

I wish i could help you - but you couldn't even get the province right.

Sorry - there's tonnes of locations to build dams, there's even quite a few decomissioned dams that could be redone, there's tonnes of run of river....  your intitial claim that we're basically out of hydro options for the future is entirely busted. There's nothing to be salvaged of it.

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - report said they were all viable locations for the future.  Sorry. And distance between doesn't really matter although it could determine size depending how far back you want the ponding to go but generally - release from one dam and the next catches it.  IF the terrain would support it you could have dozens .  And each of these locations are many KM apart. The distance between c and e is over 40 km as i recall - d is in between them.

And of course - that was ONLY with the tech available in the 70's.  THey might be able to build even more now on the same river. Distance isn't the problem.

ANd lets face it - you couldn't even figure out they were in bc.  You're hardly qualified to say how far they have to be apart ROFLMAO!!!!  But if you like go look up the original report.  

 

And here's more fun - MOST of these sites of existing dams below could have another one on the same waterway. That's quite a few. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_British_Columbia

 

So what's happening here is you look like an !diot, and you don't LIKE to look like an !diot - so you're desperately and frantically trying to find SOME POSSIBLE "loophole' or detail you can conceivably look 'correct' on.  THat's why you're so desperate and being so weird.

I wish i could help you - but you couldn't even get the province right.

Sorry - there's tonnes of locations to build dams, there's even quite a few decomissioned dams that could be redone, there's tonnes of run of river....  your intitial claim that we're basically out of hydro options for the future is entirely busted. There's nothing to be salvaged of it.

So where are they?
 

You could have 5 viable locations for a dam over 50 miles of river. Then you have to choose which one you are going to build.

Williston Lake behind the Bennet Dam is 251 km long. That’s a lake that would stretch from Vancouver to Penticton.

Or to put it in another context, if you dammed  the Fraser at Hope, the lake would stretch to 100 Mile House.

Or, Shuswap to Hope would be a single big lake.

You couldn’t do that on the Fraser because the elevation change is too great for a single dam, just trying to show how much of the Peace is already taken up by reservoirs.

The Site C reservoir will be 83 km long.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

So where are they?
 

You could have 5 viable locations for a dam over 50 miles of river. Then you have to choose which one you are going to build.

 

 

 

They're all buildable.   And  more can be built, those are just the sites they found back in the 70's.

And in fact having multiple dams means you need smaller resevoirs for the other ones. So the more you have, the more you can pack them together. Who told you they had to be far apart? Or is that just more bullshit  you made up.

The site c dam itself is an example.

"As the third project on one river system, Site C will gain significant efficiencies by taking advantage of water already stored in the Williston Reservoir. This means Site C will generate about 35 per cent of the energy produced at W.A.C. Bennett Dam, with only five per cent of the reservoir area."

https://www.sitecproject.com/about-site-c/project-overview

You fail once again.

 

You clearly know absolutely nothing about what you're desperately trying  to talk about. Every single thing you say is wrong. Every single word you type at this point just goes further to prove you're a loser and a liar.

Your dislike of hydro is completely irrational and clearly not based on truth.  Which makes it highly likely that your fake concerns about climate change are the same.

 

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They're all buildable.   And  more can be built, those are just the sites they found back in the 70's.

And in fact having multiple dams means you need smaller resevoirs for the other ones. So the more you have, the more you can pack them together. Who told you they had to be far apart? Or is that just more bullshit  you made up.

The site c dam itself is an example.

"As the third project on one river system, Site C will gain significant efficiencies by taking advantage of water already stored in the Williston Reservoir. This means Site C will generate about 35 per cent of the energy produced at W.A.C. Bennett Dam, with only five per cent of the reservoir area."

https://www.sitecproject.com/about-site-c/project-overview

You fail once again.

 

You clearly know absolutely nothing about what you're desperately trying  to talk about. Every single thing you say is wrong. Every single word you type at this point just goes further to prove you're a loser and a liar.

Your dislike of hydro is completely irrational and clearly not based on truth.  Which makes it highly likely that your fake concerns about climate change are the same.

 

If you look at a map there isn’t much river above Williston Lake nor will there be between Site C and the Alberta border. So where will those other two dams go? 

 

One can be concerned about climate change without thinking there is some sort of sliver bullet that will solve everything. I am not anti hydro, I just don’t believe it is a silver bullet. I would say that I am more concerned because I believe there won’t and solving our green energy issues will take a combination of several, if not many things, including our own behaviour.

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If you look at a map there isn’t much river above Williston Lake nor will there be between Site C and the Alberta border. So where will those other two dams go? 

 

One can be concerned about climate change without thinking there is some sort of sliver bullet that will solve everything. I am not anti hydro, I just don’t believe it is a silver bullet. I would say that I am more concerned because I believe there won’t and solving our green energy issues will take a combination of several, if not many things, including our own behaviour.

When you say we need to change our behaviour...I hear, 'This is going to be expensive and probably hurt a lot of people financially.'

Q: Why are you so willing to impose suffering on people needlessly? Wouldn't it be better to research the problem and find a reliable solution and THEN make the cross-over?

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If you look at a map there isn’t much river above Williston Lake nor will there be between Site C and the Alberta border. So where will those other two dams go? 

 

There's PLENTY of room.  Tonnes.  I mean - you literally just found out that you can get away with a tiny fraction of the size of ponding if you already have dams upstream. 

The peace canyon dam is only about 20 ish km downstream from WAC bennet for god's sake.  You could build 3 more of those between Peace canyon and site c if distance was the only concern.

The engineers know more than you. Mind you - at this point we could safely say that an emotionally damaged chihuahua knows more than you. 

Again - you've gotten literally every single thing you said wrong. 

That's what happens when a leftie loser pits "Muh feels" against fact and intelligence.

If you're so interested in the other locations - why haven't you acquired the report? 

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

When you say we need to change our behaviour...I hear, 'This is going to be expensive and probably hurt a lot of people financially.'

Q: Why are you so willing to impose suffering on people needlessly? Wouldn't it be better to research the problem and find a reliable solution and THEN make the cross-over?

Because he doesn't give a crap about suffering and doesn't really believe in climate change. And that is the problem with the current 'church of climate change'.

There used to be religions and priests who believed that you only got closer to god through suffering, and that suffering was in and of itself a worthy end goal.  Everyone should suffer. Suffering was the point.

That's basically the modern climate religion.  No - you can't have hydro. No you can't have nuclear. No you can't have Petrochemical power generation. You can't have gasoline for your car. You can have electric cars but you are not allowed to generate electricity to run them. You can have solar and wind but only because they're not available all the time so you will still suffer tremendously. Wind might be out because it kills birds.

Basically they are just happy as long as you are suffering.

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because he doesn't give a crap about suffering and doesn't really believe in climate change. And that is the problem with the current 'church of climate change'.

There used to be religions and priests who believed that you only got closer to god through suffering, and that suffering was in and of itself a worthy end goal.  Everyone should suffer. Suffering was the point.

That's basically the modern climate religion.  No - you can't have hydro. No you can't have nuclear. No you can't have Petrochemical power generation. You can't have gasoline for your car. You can have electric cars but you are not allowed to generate electricity to run them. You can have solar and wind but only because they're not available all the time so you will still suffer tremendously. Wind might be out because it kills birds.

Basically they are just happy as long as you are suffering.

And that's really what this all boils down to. I was just telling @Michael Hardner that I do not run from attacks. These Tweenkies are attacking everything all at once. Its sick and we need to unify our responses and destroy this infection.

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And that's really what this all boils down to. I was just telling @Michael Hardner that I do not run from attacks. These Tweenkies are attacking everything all at once. Its sick and we need to unify our responses and destroy this infection.

Yeah. That's the problem - lots of attacks and no solutions at all. And zero tolerance for our way of life - but china gets a walk because 'that's fair and hey, they're trying' , as if climate change would respect that.

Look at this thread - Not a single thing Aristides brought up was a valid concern.  He started with wanting hydro to be bad and wanting to say we can't have any more of it, so we're terrrible dirty polluters i guess - and then tried to come up with every argument under the sun to support his foregone conclusion.  He didn't care if they were correct or valid - the ONLY point is to support the idea that we can't have the power we want in a clean fashion so we have to forgive china (i guess? his point was pretty muddy there).

I think people are waking up and while the enviornment and climate will still be important it's going to slide way down the priority list.  We've been focusing on it for 7 years with trudeau, and things have only gotten worse.

[Aristides]

Carry on guys. If I am wrong, no one will be happier than me but you might be wrong too.

As far as attacks go, look in the mirror. I was not the one who resorted to name calling and insults.

I think I am done here.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Carry on guys. If I am wrong, no one will be happier than me but you might be wrong too.

As far as attacks go, look in the mirror. I was not the one who resorted to name calling and insults.

I think I am done here.

Good. Bye now.

[Aristides]

16 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Good. Bye now.

Chirp, chirp.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

Carry on guys. If I am wrong, no one will be happier than me but you might be wrong too.

 

You're wrong period.  And as to insults you have ZERO grounds to complain - as  i told you lying and dishonesty is far more insulting than name calling and you persisted in that from the beginning to the end.   Hope those boys drop for you some day. Buh bye

Edited August 16, 2023 by CdnFox

[I am Groot]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's why I said could have, as in decades ago, back when people were predicting this would happen. Back when right wingers accused you of trying to destroy capitalism for predicting it.

NOW you decide to get all woke about it. This is just like climate change where adapting will cost way more than acting would have when you had the chance.

Your view that 'the right' was all in on China is silly and wrong. Harper wanted nothing to do with China when he was elected TWO decades ago. You know who did? The Liberals and NDP. They harangued him, as did the largely left-wing media for not courting China. Before Harper Chretien went over there repeatedly, bringing over premiers, various ministers and businesspeople and did everything but give free blowjobs to every Chinese minister he could find to try and get deals. He's STILL a major proponent of Chinese Canadian friendship and business interests. 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Your view that 'the right' was all in on China is silly and wrong. Harper wanted nothing to do with China when he was elected TWO decades ago. You know who did? The Liberals and NDP. They harangued him, as did the largely left-wing media for not courting China. Before Harper Chretien went over there repeatedly, bringing over premiers, various ministers and businesspeople and did everything but give free blowjobs to every Chinese minister he could find to try and get deals. He's STILL a major proponent of Chinese Canadian friendship and business interests. 

Yeah my learning is that government must start from the hawkish position of mean arsehole.  At that point let the negotiations begin and always retain control.  It beats the fake flatterer approach, which is immediately perceived as weak and doormat-like.  The results are in.  Where under Harper Canada had China’s respect, under Trudeau Canada is a punching bag. China takes Canadians hostage as bargaining chips and won’t allow Chinese people to visit Canada.  So much for Trudeau’s public admiration for China’s basic dictatorship. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah my learning is that government must start from the hawkish position of mean arsehole.  At that point let the negotiations begin and always retain control.  It beats the fake flatterer approach, which is immediately perceived as weak and doormat-like.  The results are in.  Where under Harper Canada had China’s respect, under Trudeau Canada is a punching bag. China takes Canadians hostage as bargaining chips and won’t allow Chinese people to visit Canada.  So much for Trudeau’s public admiration for China’s basic dictatorship. 

Exactly.  Simping to them doesnt' work. Ignoring them also doesn't work.  Harper's approach worked - hard nosed and what the hell... invite the dalia lama over once in a while just to say "eff you and your one china policy",  Do business but always let them know  you're prepared to not do business.

It works better than getting called little potato.

[Aristides]

On 8/16/2023 at 6:44 AM, CdnFox said:

There's PLENTY of room.  Tonnes.  I mean - you literally just found out that you can get away with a tiny fraction of the size of ponding if you already have dams upstream. 

The peace canyon dam is only about 20 ish km downstream from WAC bennet for god's sake.  You could build 3 more of those between Peace canyon and site c if distance was the only concern.

The engineers know more than you. Mind you - at this point we could safely say that an emotionally damaged chihuahua knows more than you. 

Again - you've gotten literally every single thing you said wrong. 

That's what happens when a leftie loser pits "Muh feels" against fact and intelligence.

If you're so interested in the other locations - why haven't you acquired the report? 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/west-kootenay-arrow-lakes-1.6959040

[CdnFox]

On 9/7/2023 at 11:05 AM, Aristides said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/west-kootenay-arrow-lakes-1.6959040

Oh - still bound and determined to look like a m0r0n?

So... the problem isn't the dam.  It's the drought and the agreement with the us.  If the dam wasn't there then there woudln't be a lake - which is what they're complaining about now

 

So in your latest level of stupidity, Building dams causes drought.  You realize they'd have the same problem without the dam right?

Could you POSSIBLY be more stupid.

[Aristides]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-drought-impacts-1.6961982