Page 39 of 39 FirstFirst ... 293536373839
Results 3,801 to 3,861 of 3861

Thread: Liberals And Trudeau - Performance Review!

  1. #3801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Thanks Replacement for your comments.

    Having lived in Quebec for 7 years, I have found no animosity against Alberta and find many people who have lived in Alberta at some point in their lives. For Albertans, blaming all their woes on Ottawa and Quebec makes for good barroom fodder.

    For those who do not know it, the current government in power in Quebec is the right wing conservative Coalition Avenir Québec.

    As far as moving to a liberal hotbed, you might notice the many election results in Alberta.

    As far as Calgary and Stettler are concerned, Edmonton itself is a liberal and NDP hotbed.


    Most liberal support here is borne out of prior politics. Not to actual Liberal sentiments, which tends low here.

    For instance guys like Decore, Sohi who started out in Civic politics.

    NDP, yes, a long tradition here in Alberta, particularly Edmonton, and much more support than for the Liberal party. I don't see what you're saying about Edmonton being any liberal bastion.

    It really doesn't matter who is elected in Quebec, the province and its leaders have often been anti Alberta and as recently as proclamations of dirty Oil.

    In anycase Decore is the only Liberal I have ever voted for in my life but despite the affiliation, certainly not because of it.

    Most people in Alberta that have lived here any length of time completely despise the Liberal brand.
    Last edited by Replacement; 18-06-2019 at 09:50 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  2. #3802
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,985

    Default

    ^^Federal carbon pricing is more than words. So is a thermal coal phase-out by 2030 and the oil sands emissions cap, among other actions.

    The holier than thou crowd is always going to say it's never enough. But governments need to operate in a world where their actions directly affect the jobs and livelihoods of everyday people and families. And where if they move too fast Canadians are going to end up with a different government that will do even less to address the issues the purists claim to care about.

  3. #3803
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Most people in Alberta that have lived here any length of time completely despise the Liberal brand.
    Which is kind of odd, because, when we're talking about Albertans hating the Liberals, what we're really talking about is the energy policies of Pierre Trudeau. But the NDP supported those policies, in fact wanted Trudeau to go even further, but as you note, the NDP is much more popular in the province than the Liberals.

    Alternately, one could also argue that animosity toward the Liberals AT THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL isn't that strong anymore, given that Decore's Liberals managed to win 40% of the vote(only four points less than the Tories) in '93, and could possibly have won the election, if Klein hadn't managed to outflank them on the right with spending cuts. That was at a time when memories of the NEP were even fresher than they are now.

    At the federal level, yes, Alberta is a wasteland for the Liberals, no question.

  4. #3804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Which is kind of odd, because, when we're talking about Albertans hating the Liberals, what we're really talking about is the energy policies of Pierre Trudeau. But the NDP supported those policies, in fact wanted Trudeau to go even further, but as you note, the NDP is much more popular in the province than the Liberals.
    Its called a "third party promise" - the NDP and the greens can promise all sorts of things, and did promise more extreme things (like the NDP now promising free dental and pharma), but no-one takes them seriously, because they are a third party. Its not really about what a party says it will do, its more about what it actually does. The Liberals themselves at Federal level have had to deal with some "third party" promises (like electoral reform) because when Trudeau came to power, that's all they were.

  5. #3805
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Which is kind of odd, because, when we're talking about Albertans hating the Liberals, what we're really talking about is the energy policies of Pierre Trudeau. But the NDP supported those policies, in fact wanted Trudeau to go even further, but as you note, the NDP is much more popular in the province than the Liberals.
    Its called a "third party promise" - the NDP and the greens can promise all sorts of things, and did promise more extreme things (like the NDP now promising free dental and pharma), but no-one takes them seriously, because they are a third party. Its not really about what a party says it will do, its more about what it actually does. The Liberals themselves at Federal level have had to deal with some "third party" promises (like electoral reform) because when Trudeau came to power, that's all they were.
    If you mean to say that no one connects the NDP with those policies because the NDP wasn't actually the party that came to power and implemented them, I'd agree to a large extent. Though I believe that the planning for Petro-Canada might have begun when the Liberals were in a minority situation, which would make the NDP at least partly repsonsible for that.

  6. #3806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Federal carbon pricing is more than words. So is a thermal coal phase-out by 2030 and the oil sands emissions cap, among other actions.

    The holier than thou crowd is always going to say it's never enough. But governments need to operate in a world where their actions directly affect the jobs and livelihoods of everyday people and families. And where if they move too fast Canadians are going to end up with a different government that will do even less to address the issues the purists claim to care about.
    As per the Parliamentary Budget Office, the current carbon levy is insufficient to meet reduction targets; it would need to double to be effective. Yet just this past week, the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change said the Liberals had no plans to do this. So, yes: words without action.

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/and...the-carbon-tax

  7. #3807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^

    proving rather than disproving my point...

    if we had treated coal the way we treated oil and gas, oil and gas would have been the lower cost option. i saw the same in scotland when natural gas pricing saw some people converting back to coal and others reverting to burning peat. just as we see rainforests being clear cut for local heating and cooking needs.

    real world examples all of what properly constructed carbon taxes and credits should deter rather than support.
    Natural gas has been dirt cheap for years. So much so that companies often just flare it off because it's not worth enough to capture. And seeing as the oil sands are much more expensive to mine, dilute, ship and upgrade than regular light, sweet crude, there's no way it would be competitive with cheap coal.

    And low oil prices are what got Alberta in it's current situation in the first place.

  8. #3808
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Canada's House of Commons has declared a national climate emergency

    The motion describes climate change as a "real and urgent crisis, driven by human activity," notes how it is impacting Canadians, and states the need to pursue clean growth methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cana...ency-1.4470804

    A real and urgent crisis driven by human activity... so let's build a pipeline!

    The Liberals will seemingly never learn that credibility comes from actions and behaviour, not from words.
    Yeah, I thought that odd as well.

    Then I thought, OMG, they've timed this to set the stage to say no TMP. (Waiting VERY nervously)
    ... gobsmacked

  9. #3809

    Default

    Nothing to worry about. Any spills will be cleaned up ASAP.

    B.C. woman still waiting for cleanup of pipeline oil leak on her property

    With the federal government expected to announce its decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on Tuesday, Janice Antoine, a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., wants to know when contamination from the pipeline discovered on her property five years ago will be cleaned up.


    "I, at this point, have no confidence, because in my field there was a spill that occurred and it's been, I believe, five years. We had promises that the contamination would be cleaned up, and the contaminated soil is still sitting there," said Janice Antoine.


    She's a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., where decades-old contamination was discovered on her property in 2014.


    CBC has obtained records from Trans Mountain and found there are seven known contamination sites along the route of the existing pipeline in B.C. and Alberta. According to Trans Mountain, five of the sites are under active remediation and two have remediation action plans under review with the NEB.


    Five of the contaminated sites are in B.C. and the other two are in Alberta.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/c...onse-1.5176102

  10. #3810

    Default

    And it's approved. Expect Alberta to complain.

    Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain expansion project

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet have again approved the Trans Mountain expansion project, a crucial next step for the much-delayed pipeline project designed to carry nearly a million barrels of oil from Alberta's oilpatch to the B.C. coast.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tas...sion-1.5180269

  11. #3811

    Default

    Freed from the shackles of cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould is now at liberty to say how she really feels about TMX. She's not in favour.

    It has been famously said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I expect that is what we will see this week, as the government chooses to try to proceed, again, in a context of ongoing conflict and mistrust. That decision will undoubtedly please many Canadians – though I imagine that will be tempered by continued skepticism that government will be able to follow through and actually build the project. Time has changed many things.

    Given this unfortunate reality, a better approach, in my view, is to acknowledge the broken context, and not proceed with TMX at this time. This approach requires leadership, collaboration and commitment along with bold and concrete plans that actually reset the direction of our energy future in a way Canadians can trust and get behind – from coast-to-coast-to-coast. What are your thoughts?
    Source: https://www.re-electjodywr.ca/trans_...line_expansion

  12. #3812
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,953

    Default

    “Freed from the shackles of cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould is now at liberty to say how she really feels about TMX. She's not in favour.“. ....... and.....who really cares.

  13. #3813
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    I think most people knew how JWR felt. The same as McKenna really feels.
    Animals are my passion.

  14. #3814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    And it's approved. Expect Alberta to complain.

    Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain expansion project

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet have again approved the Trans Mountain expansion project, a crucial next step for the much-delayed pipeline project designed to carry nearly a million barrels of oil from Alberta's oilpatch to the B.C. coast.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tas...sion-1.5180269
    Until the shovels are in the ground, I wouldn't be jumping up and down in glee and worshiping Trudeau if I was you. Still lots of hurdles to clear.

  15. #3815
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Which is kind of odd, because, when we're talking about Albertans hating the Liberals, what we're really talking about is the energy policies of Pierre Trudeau. But the NDP supported those policies, in fact wanted Trudeau to go even further, but as you note, the NDP is much more popular in the province than the Liberals.

    Alternately, one could also argue that animosity toward the Liberals AT THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL isn't that strong anymore, given that Decore's Liberals managed to win 40% of the vote(only four points less than the Tories) in '93, and could possibly have won the election, if Klein hadn't managed to outflank them on the right with spending cuts. That was at a time when memories of the NEP were even fresher than they are now.

    At the federal level, yes, Alberta is a wasteland for the Liberals, no question.
    Did you happen to miss the fact that the Liberals didn't even manage a single percentage point of the vote in the most recent election? Regardless of the reasons why, the fact is that Alberta is a wasteland for the Liberal party, whether Federal or Provincial. Maybe there isn't much animosity towards the provincial Liberals. But it's hard to hate something that is totally and utterly irrelevant, and has been for decades.

    I honestly can't understand why they keep banging their heads on the wall, expecting things to change. Just fold already and send your useful, talented people over to the Alberta Party, please.

  16. #3816
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte
    As per the Parliamentary Budget Office, the current carbon levy is insufficient to meet reduction targets; it would need to double to be effective. Yet just this past week, the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change said the Liberals had no plans to do this. So, yes: words without action.


    So getting halfway to a goal is no better than not bothering at all? That's some strange logic you're pushing there. Further, that report was VERY clear that the comparison was only valid if the ONLY thing the Federal government was doing was a carbon tax. It doesn't take in to account things like emissions reductions from better public transit that they're investing in, and so on. I'm quite sure even if you did add all that up it still wouldn't get us to the Paris goals, but again, expecting any government or political party to be able to ram down the kind of changes required in a single term is completely unrealistic.

    Your choice as an environmentalist these days is to stick with ideological purity, vote for the NDP, and lecture everyone how awful the Conservatives are while they slow roll any true measures against carbon emissions. Or you can get your head out of the clouds and realize that the voting public is NEVER going to vote for the significant cost of living increase induced by going from $20/ton to $100+/ton carbon taxes. It's just not going to happen. In which case, at least the Liberals have actually taken the first tentative steps.

    And if you don't believe me, believe Erin Grenier:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ele...ange-1.5178514

    Canadians are hugely supportive of action on climate change... until the bill arrives. Then they run for the door. That's just the political reality.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 18-06-2019 at 05:25 PM.

  17. #3817

    Default

    Alberta could always follow the Doug Ford model.

    Here's what everyone seems to be missing in the PBO's climate policy math

    "Ford, of course, had campaigned on repealing Ontario's cap-and-trade system and fighting the federal price. His government is preparing to mandate that anti-carbon tax stickers be affixed to every gas pump in the province and is already running publicly funded television ads that criticize the federal policy.


    Premier Doug Ford's government is pursuing a climate change policy that could end up costing Ontario more than the federal carbon pricing plan. (Cole Burston/Canadian Press)
    "A carbon tax isn't the only way to fight climate change," the television ad concludes.


    That's technically true. But what Sawyer and Stiebert found is that the Ford way will actually be more expensive.


    "We estimate the total cost of the Ontario Plan in 2022 is $334 million with an average cost of $62 per tonne removed. To achieve the 18 Mt reduction in 2030 sought by the Plan, we calculate the average cost per tonne of emissions removed is $69 per tonne with a total cost of $1.23 billion," they write.


    "The cost of the Federal approach for the same level of emission reductions is estimated to be $214 million in 2022 with an average cost of $40 per tonne removed. In 2030, total costs are $811 million with an average cost of $45 per tonne.""

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/par...-tax-1.5175774

  18. #3818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte
    As per the Parliamentary Budget Office, the current carbon levy is insufficient to meet reduction targets; it would need to double to be effective. Yet just this past week, the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change said the Liberals had no plans to do this. So, yes: words without action.


    So getting halfway to a goal is no better than not bothering at all? That's some strange logic you're pushing there. Further, that report was VERY clear that the comparison was only valid if the ONLY thing the Federal government was doing was a carbon tax. It doesn't take in to account things like emissions reductions from better public transit that they're investing in, and so on. I'm quite sure even if you did add all that up it still wouldn't get us to the Paris goals, but again, expecting any government or political party to be able to ram down the kind of changes required in a single term is completely unrealistic.

    Your choice as an environmentalist these days is to stick with ideological purity, vote for the NDP, and lecture everyone how awful the Conservatives are while they slow roll any true measures against carbon emissions. Or you can get your head out of the clouds and realize that the voting public is NEVER going to vote for the significant cost of living increase induced by going from $20/ton to $100+/ton carbon taxes. It's just not going to happen. In which case, at least the Liberals have actually taken the first tentative steps.

    And if you don't believe me, believe Erin Grenier:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ele...ange-1.5178514

    Canadians are hugely supportive of action on climate change... until the bill arrives. Then they run for the door. That's just the political reality.
    I'm not sure we read the same report. The PBO report clearly states that they use the Environment and Climate Change Canada "Additional Measures Case" for their modelling. These additional measures include things like:
    • Federal Backstop Carbon Pollution Pricing
    • Clean Fuel Standard
    • Low-Carbon Economy Challenge Fund
    • Strategic Interconnections in electricity
    • Emerging renewables and smart grids
    • Off-diesel energy systems in remote communities
    • Net-zero energy ready building codes (for new commercial and residential buildings) by 2030
    • Labelling and codes for existing buildings (retrofits)
    • More stringent Energy Efficiency Standards for appliances and equipment
    • Regulations for off-road industrial, commercial, residential and recreational vehicles
    • Post-2025 LDV regulations
    • Increased use of wood in buildings construction

    (A full list can be found here.)

    Even with all these measures plus carbon pricing at $50, the PBO finds Canada will fall short of its Paris targets. The modelling by the PBO finds that additional carbon pricing beyond $50 can not only help Canada meet its targets but does so at much less cost to the economy than the first $50. The first $50 causes a -0.5% hit to real GDP by 2022; the second $52 only causes a -0.35% hit from then until 2030.

    PBO’s estimates of the impacts of additional carbon pricing needed to achieve the Paris target suggest a larger reduction in GHG emissions at a slightly lower cost to the Canadian economy than ECCC’s estimates of the impacts of carbon pricing over 2018 to 2022.

    Source: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/defaul..._Target_EN.pdf

    You asked if "getting halfway to a goal is no better than not bothering at all?" The answer is, of course, it's likely worth something. However, with the Liberal promise to stick at $50 we are not only guaranteeing that we fail to reach that goal but that we fail in the most inefficient way possible. That's hardly the appropriate response to an emergency.

  19. #3819
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte
    I'm not sure we read the same report.
    I confess I did not read the report itself, but several articles that commented on it. I'll see if I can track them down. It's possible they or more likely I misinterpreted something.

    I think this is the main one I was thinking of: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/par...-tax-1.5175774

    The PBO's analysis is limited insofar as it relies on the federal government's current emissions projections, which do not yet include modelling for reductions that might occur from investments in public transit and clean technology, as well as newer policies such as plans to curb the use of plastics. It also can't account for other subsidies and regulations that the federal government might introduce.
    So I definitely took that a step further when I said the analysis only looked at the carbon tax, my bad!

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte
    You asked if "getting halfway to a goal is no better than not bothering at all?" The answer is, of course, it's likely worth something. However, with the Liberal promise to stick at $50 we are not only guaranteeing that we fail to reach that goal but that we fail in the most inefficient way possible. That's hardly the appropriate response to an emergency.
    They have't "promised" to stay at $50, is my understanding. They are just being extremely cagey about what happens to the tax going forward, because they know the Conservatives will use it as a bludgeon if they come out and say "oh yeah, we're totally going to keep jacking up that hated tax". The political realities make it incredibly challenging to get any of this stuff through, or to keep it in place once it's been brought in. Look no further than Alberta.

    But then, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna also was not eager on Thursday to embrace any suggestion that a higher, or additional, carbon price might be deployed to further reduce emissions."The plan is not to increase the price post-2022," she said.
    Technically, that's true. Under the current national framework, the price of carbon will increase $10 per tonne each year, reaching $50 per tonne in 2022. What would happen after that is not clear. And even the NDP, while it vows to be bigger and bolder on climate policy than the Liberals, has so far declined to promise a higher price on carbon.
    If McKenna is reluctant to endorse a future increase to the national carbon price, it's surely not just because she doesn't have a federal-provincial agreement that commits to doing that.
    You and I would probably agree on most aspects of actual policy. Where we disagree is mostly the politics of it.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 19-06-2019 at 10:31 AM.

  20. #3820
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I honestly can't understand why they (provincial Liberals) keep banging their heads on the wall, expecting things to change. Just fold already and send your useful, talented people over to the Alberta Party, please.
    Thank you, yes! I too fail to understand how provincial Liberals think they have any hope of ever even forming official opposition status. Their arrogance apparently knows no limits
    ... gobsmacked

  21. #3821
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I honestly can't understand why they (provincial Liberals) keep banging their heads on the wall, expecting things to change. Just fold already and send your useful, talented people over to the Alberta Party, please.
    Thank you, yes! I too fail to understand how provincial Liberals think they have any hope of ever even forming official opposition status. Their arrogance apparently knows no limits
    ???

    how can you say you "fail to understand how" in your second sentence and then go on to state exactly how in your third?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #3822
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,117

    Default



    Top_Dawg recalls when ol' Laurie Blakeman lost her seat in 2015 during the orange crush.

    Then during a TV interview she began shamelessly lobbying Trudeau for a senate appointment with that old gem: " I still have so much to contribute ".

    Top_Dawg loved it when some clever wag wrote in a letter to the editor that if she has so much to contribute there is no shortage of great volunteer positions everywhere.

    'Course she has SO much to contribute only if it gets her a $150 grand a year, a slew of benefits, and a gold plated pension.

    No trough then nothing to contribute 'parently.

  23. #3823

    Default

    From that well known lefty rag, The National Post.

    John Ivison: Conservative climate plan gives voters what they say they want — expressions of concern with no actual cost
    Scheer's 'real plan to protect the environment' fits the bill for many Canadians who say they care about climate change but are not willing to pay the equivalent of a Netflix subscription in extra taxes

    Scheer claims that Canada, “a relatively low emitter” (in fact, one of the world’s largest per capita greenhouse gas emitters), is subjecting itself to expensive emission reduction strategies, while high-emitting developing countries with lower-cost emissions-reduction opportunities struggle to make investments.


    The goal here appears to be to invoke Article 6 of the Paris Agreement so that countries like Canada could get credit on their emissions targets for any exports of clean technology or energy that displace dirtier sources abroad — for example, Canadian liquified natural gas that displaces coal in China.


    But the Paris Agreement is clear: the accounting system signed onto by 197 countries is based on emissions that take place in your own territory. Displacing Chinese coal with LNG would reduce global emissions and it would expand the Canadian economy, but it could not be counted towards Canada’s Paris targets (unless the Chinese voluntarily gave up those credits — an unlikely scenario, one would suggest.)

    https://nationalpost.com/news/john-i...no-actual-cost


  24. #3824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Nothing to worry about. Any spills will be cleaned up ASAP.

    B.C. woman still waiting for cleanup of pipeline oil leak on her property

    With the federal government expected to announce its decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on Tuesday, Janice Antoine, a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., wants to know when contamination from the pipeline discovered on her property five years ago will be cleaned up.


    "I, at this point, have no confidence, because in my field there was a spill that occurred and it's been, I believe, five years. We had promises that the contamination would be cleaned up, and the contaminated soil is still sitting there," said Janice Antoine.


    She's a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., where decades-old contamination was discovered on her property in 2014.


    CBC has obtained records from Trans Mountain and found there are seven known contamination sites along the route of the existing pipeline in B.C. and Alberta. According to Trans Mountain, five of the sites are under active remediation and two have remediation action plans under review with the NEB.


    Five of the contaminated sites are in B.C. and the other two are in Alberta.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/c...onse-1.5176102
    Shame on Trudeau and the B.C. NDP government for doing nothing about this for the last 4 years.

  25. #3825
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoneman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Nothing to worry about. Any spills will be cleaned up ASAP.

    B.C. woman still waiting for cleanup of pipeline oil leak on her property

    With the federal government expected to announce its decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on Tuesday, Janice Antoine, a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., wants to know when contamination from the pipeline discovered on her property five years ago will be cleaned up.


    "I, at this point, have no confidence, because in my field there was a spill that occurred and it's been, I believe, five years. We had promises that the contamination would be cleaned up, and the contaminated soil is still sitting there," said Janice Antoine.


    She's a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., where decades-old contamination was discovered on her property in 2014.


    CBC has obtained records from Trans Mountain and found there are seven known contamination sites along the route of the existing pipeline in B.C. and Alberta. According to Trans Mountain, five of the sites are under active remediation and two have remediation action plans under review with the NEB.


    Five of the contaminated sites are in B.C. and the other two are in Alberta.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/c...onse-1.5176102
    Shame on Trudeau and the B.C. NDP government for doing nothing about this for the last 4 years.
    Well, now that TMX is a crown corporation, it will take another 8 years and 5x the cost it should before it gets cleaned up.

  26. #3826

    Default

    The company was responsible and I hope the pipeline buyout don’t include assuming these past liabilities.
    Last edited by KC; 19-06-2019 at 06:51 PM.

  27. #3827

    Default

    So you believe that companies should be able to shirk their responsibilities simply by selling the affected asset? "We only bought the good stuff. The company that sold it to us, that doesn't exist anymore, is who you should be going after"

  28. #3828

    Default

    Socialized risks/costs, privatized profits. It's the most common/unifying thread on C2E, from the development threads that fixate on shovels in the ground & cranes in the air to the circle-jerking ad hominem factory that is the political threads.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  29. #3829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoneman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Nothing to worry about. Any spills will be cleaned up ASAP.

    B.C. woman still waiting for cleanup of pipeline oil leak on her property

    With the federal government expected to announce its decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on Tuesday, Janice Antoine, a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., wants to know when contamination from the pipeline discovered on her property five years ago will be cleaned up.


    "I, at this point, have no confidence, because in my field there was a spill that occurred and it's been, I believe, five years. We had promises that the contamination would be cleaned up, and the contaminated soil is still sitting there," said Janice Antoine.


    She's a resident of the Coldwater reserve in B.C., where decades-old contamination was discovered on her property in 2014.


    CBC has obtained records from Trans Mountain and found there are seven known contamination sites along the route of the existing pipeline in B.C. and Alberta. According to Trans Mountain, five of the sites are under active remediation and two have remediation action plans under review with the NEB.


    Five of the contaminated sites are in B.C. and the other two are in Alberta.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/c...onse-1.5176102
    Shame on Trudeau and the B.C. NDP government for doing nothing about this for the last 4 years.
    And shame on the company that spilled it over decades and the Conservative and BC Provincial Liberal governments that did nothing about it.

  30. #3830
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,985

    Default

    The CBC report left out some important facts that were better covered in a report last year by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

    According to APTN, the Coldwater First Nation (which opposes the expansion project) is blocking access by Kinder Morgan (now Trans Mountain) to re-mediate decades old contamination the company itself discovered when doing routine maintenance on the existing line in 2014.

    More details here: https://aptnnews.ca/2018/04/24/trave...hey-sign-deal/

  31. #3831

    Default

    I thought that these pipelines were safe and that any spills were promptly cleaned up? Silly me.

    This thing has been leaking for decades. How many others have been doing so as well that haven't ben discovered yet?

    It's like the old Esso station on Whyte that sat empty for years because the ground was so contaminated.

  32. #3832
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    I guess JT is asking Trump for help, getting the two men out of jail in China, China is ignoring JT
    Animals are my passion.

  33. #3833

    Default

    Well, well, well...

    We waited for ages for Scheer to come up with a better plan than the Liberals and he comes up with a carbon tax.

    Scheer acknowledges feds would put price on carbon under his plan to cap big emitters https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politi...ters-1.4477531
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #3834
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,729

    Default

    Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  35. #3835

    Default

    It is still a carbon tax.

    It is still a tax on industry and that trickles down to the consumer.

    If you charge the refineries millions in carbon taxes, don't expect cheaper prices at the pumps.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-06-2019 at 03:07 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #3836
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
    Exactly. Right now, .we pay a carbon tax for heating our houses, and we still get taxed on everything else..
    Well I guess it's up to the election in Oct, frankly I'm not enamoured with any of them
    Listening to Singh today, he's totally out to lunch..
    Animals are my passion.

  37. #3837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
    Yeah, because the energy companies will TOTALLY eat the cost out of the goodness of their hearts.

  38. #3838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Its different because its not putting a carbon tax on the backs of consumers.
    So are you saying that the world is right to be trying to prevent Alberta’s oil exports and maybe even taxing our oil (tariffs etc) as we are the producer and that the consumers in their own countries shouldn’t face taxes to reduce their demand for our oil?

    Like raising the minimum wage, the producer, say a restaurant producing meals faces higher costs. Most consumers don’t have to eat out but those that do, have to pay higher prices.

    Apparently whether demand falls when costs increase depends on the party and what cost increase they are pushing and it has nothing to do with what those foolish economists mistakenly think results from the supply-demand curves and elasticity.
    Last edited by KC; 23-06-2019 at 07:26 PM.

  39. #3839

    Default

    To me it seems like both liberal and conservative climate plans are flawed. If you are concerned about climate you should criticize both, if concerns is political scoring, that’s another story.

    what a liberal carbon tax approach does is a one-off shifting the demand lower and so as the supply-demand theory says the supply will come lower to the new lowered demand level. The problem here is that to meet the Paris agreements levels of reduction in GHG emissions, you have to significantly raise the carbon tax (to significantly lower energy consumption) and liberals have avoided that decision (see post #3818 in this thread).

    Adding to the problem is the fact that external factors might derail the policy intention. In another thread, I posted the annual energy report from BP that showed in 2018 due to extreme hot and cold days, globally (not in Canada specifically) energy consumption grew as households needed more cooling and heating.

    Media coverage of Scheer climate plan, to extent I had time to explore, mostly dwell on the fact he is proposing a carbon pricing scheme, without calling it tax. Also following the poll results that suggested Canadian are concerned about climate change but shy away from paying the cost, most report suggest Scheer policy is designed to cater to those concerns with non-transparent pricing mechanism. Also the policy lacks some key details which apparently will be released later, such as the actual thresholds for emissions levels and prices.

    However, what seems interesting in Scheer’s policy, IMO, is linking the carbon cost to investment in research and tools to reduce emissions in future. In contrast to the one-off effect of a carbon tax, such an approach has the potential to advance the technologies needed to address climate change and provide incentives for Canadian companies to take a lead on the global stage in that regard. Of course, execution of the policy is important but I think there is a promise there.

  40. #3840

    Default

    Research and tools to reduce emissions in the future? Like the highly touted carbon capture that isn't even a blip in emission reduction?

    It's just a way of kicking the can down the road and continuing to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "Don't worry, those folks in the future will solve it for us".

    You want to reduce emissions? Reduce what's emitting.

  41. #3841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Research and tools to reduce emissions in the future? Like the highly touted carbon capture that isn't even a blip in emission reduction?

    It's just a way of kicking the can down the road and continuing to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "Don't worry, those folks in the future will solve it for us".

    You want to reduce emissions? Reduce what's emitting.
    Carbon capture has made great advances.

    What I find interesting is how people don’t want to talk about either nuclear or carbon capture. They regularly spew comments that climate change is real and that the predictions are valid but then get all airy fairy about how we need to respond.

    The idea that we can tear down landfill and re-mine, re-manufacture, replace and rebuild everything (vehicles, homes, factories, transport infrastructure, etc.) and not initially make matters far worse through bringing-forward massive amounts of production is nonsense. Then that we can just build out solar and wind to replace coal and natural gas seems impossible. So if we keep natural gas in the mix we need carbon capture as natural gas isn’t much better than oil.

    So how do we eliminate most fossil fuel usage and mitigate its use where it is essentially unavoidable? Right now that would have to be through carbon capture and nuclear.

    Climate change experts say nuclear is simply necessary and unavoidable. So if that’s the case then to pretend that we don’t need to ramp up nuclear is no different behaviour than we see global warming deniers engaging in.


    James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'
    The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam.
    So what would he do? By Decca Aitkenhead
    Decca Aitkenhead
    Sat 1 Mar 2008

    For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his.


    “More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.”

    “The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/theguard....climatechange


    To fight climate change, nuclear power is a must

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d08_story.html



    Prof. James Lovelock in his 100th Year - Gaia discussion for #CCLS2019 - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG04PRYqAw
    Last edited by KC; 24-06-2019 at 06:54 AM.

  42. #3842
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    McKenna said they won't meet their targets( Which are PM Harpers targets) and that 80% will rely on technology. So why not ditch the carbon tax, and go 100% technology, then you'll have Scheers plan..lol
    Animals are my passion.

  43. #3843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    McKenna said they won't meet their targets( Which are PM Harpers targets) and that 80% will rely on technology. So why not ditch the carbon tax, and go 100% technology, then you'll have Scheers plan..lol
    Because for decades and decades no group out there has done more than conservatives to promote the idea that cost increases increase prices and price increases reduce demand. Find me a proposed tax increase where conservatives didn’t say that it would hurt economic growth and kill jobs.

    So here we have a necessity of reducing CO2, the left embracing conservative thinking* and suddenly the conservatives get all nuanced. It’s just bull shitting morons in politics wanting their way and greedy for power. Nothing more.


    * supply and demand has never been so simplistic as the conservatives have tried to get people to think when they try to brainwash people. Same goes for the economic platitudes and nonsense the political left spews.
    Last edited by KC; 24-06-2019 at 07:14 AM.

  44. #3844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Research and tools to reduce emissions in the future? Like the highly touted carbon capture that isn't even a blip in emission reduction?

    It's just a way of kicking the can down the road and continuing to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "Don't worry, those folks in the future will solve it for us".

    You want to reduce emissions? Reduce what's emitting.
    Carbon capture has made great advances.

    What I find interesting is how people don’t want to talk about either nuclear or carbon capture. They regularly spew comments that climate change is real and that the predictions are valid but then get all airy fairy about how we need to respond.

    The idea that we can tear down landfill and re-mine, re-manufacture, replace and rebuild everything (vehicles, homes, factories, transport infrastructure, etc.) and not initially make matters far worse through bringing-forward massive amounts of production is nonsense. Then that we can just build out solar and wind to replace coal and natural gas seems impossible. So if we keep natural gas in the mix we need carbon capture as natural gas isn’t much better than oil.

    So how do we eliminate most fossil fuel usage and mitigate its use where it is essentially unavoidable? Right now that would have to be through carbon capture and nuclear.

    Climate change experts say nuclear is simply necessary and unavoidable. So if that’s the case then to pretend that we don’t need to ramp up nuclear is no different behaviour than we see global warming deniers engaging in.


    James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'
    The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam.
    So what would he do? By Decca Aitkenhead
    Decca Aitkenhead
    Sat 1 Mar 2008

    For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his.


    “More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.”

    “The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/theguard....climatechange


    To fight climate change, nuclear power is a must

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d08_story.html



    Prof. James Lovelock in his 100th Year - Gaia discussion for #CCLS2019 - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG04PRYqAw
    The problems with nuclear are many, not the least of which are the continual cost overruns and what to dow with the waste.

    The US government has spent a ton of money on Yucca Mountain in Nevada with the though that they could store waste there for 100,00 years and it would be safe and dry. Almost as soon as they built the storage caverns, water started leaking into them. In the middle of the Nevada desert, in the middle of a mountain, there's still water leaking in and out. In order to protect the storage casks, they installed drip shields. The water ended up corroding them almost from the start.

    And there is no nuclear power plant anywhere that was build on time and on budget.


    Corrosion Behavior of Waste Package and Drip Shield Materials

    IV. CONCLUSIONS
    Fabrication and closure processes such as welding and
    post welding operations may render Alloy 22 susceptible to
    localized corrosion in Cl- containing solutions in the form of
    interdendritic or intergranular attack in crevice locations at
    potentials above the repassivation potential. However, nitrate
    can act as an effective inhibitor at relatively low molar
    concentrations ratios. The beneficial effect of nitrate should
    be studied over a wide range of chloride concentrations and
    temperatures. Slow corrosion rates can be expected for Alloy
    22 containers over many thousands of years, as inferred
    from experimental and modeling studies. Alloy 22 was not
    found susceptible to environmentally assisted cracking in
    hot, concentrated Cl- solutions, including simulated
    concentrated water.


    The most detrimental process affecting the life of Ti
    Grade 7 drip shield appears to be enhanced dissolution in
    the presence of F- in the water. Further evaluation will
    attempt to clarify the effect ofF-on environmentally assisted
    cracking.

    https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0300/ML030030196.pdf

  45. #3845

    Default

    Notley on her legacy, how Trudeau failed Alberta and Kenney’s ambition | National Post

    https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-ultimate-goal

  46. #3846

    Default

    “The problems with nuclear are many,...”

    The problems with reducing CO2 are many

    The problems with switching to solar and wind are many


    Now if the climate change experts that understand our future energy requirements say that nuclear must be part of the future, why be a denier?

    The mathematical and science facts of future energy needs are likely more provable than the climate change case itself. The variables involved are likely simpler to work with. So denying the predictions and the stated need for nuclear is no different than denying climate change itself.

    France runs nuclear and France reprocesses.
    There’s lots of nuclear plants around the world that have been running well for decades so the ancient designs have overall done alright so there should be ways to mass produce a new plant design with both great quality and efficiency plus produce a design that eliminates most or all of the pasts major flaws. Then also produce a design that has a cost effective approach to the safe shutdown should a failure occur.

    And then simply don’t build them on tsunami prone beaches.



    Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui? | The Heritage Foundation
    2007
    https://www.heritage.org/environment...t-why-cant-oui


    The next wave of innovation': Nuclear reactors of the future are small and modular
    The pros and cons of small modular reactors and where we could see them generating nuclear power
    Emily Chung - CBC News
    Posted: 4 Hours Ago

    ...
    “One such alternative is nuclear energy, and the International Energy Agency — a group focused on energy security, development and environmental sustainability for 30-member countries — says the transition to a cleaner energy system will be drastically harder without it.

    Canada's federal government appears to be on board, saying nuclear innovation plays a "critical role" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as Canada moves toward a low-carbon future.”



    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...-smr-1.5187469




    Decline in nuclear power threatens global climate goals, IEA says

    Report warns 2/3 of capacity could be lost by 2040 as developed nations phase out old nuclear plants

    Thomson Reuters · Posted: May 27, 2019

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/n...-iea-1.5152080
    Last edited by KC; Yesterday at 06:53 AM.

  47. #3847
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    And then simply don’t build them on tsunami prone beaches.


    They knew the seawall wasn't high enough, and that the generators weren't high enough either. Fix either of those and there wouldn't have been a disaster. It was totally foreseeable. It wasn't a failure of technology, engineering or even foresight. It was a failure of bureaucracy and poor regulation.

  48. #3848

    Default

    Nuclear power for Alberta?

    Let's just learn the lessons from Ontario


    Price of nuclear power going up 180% by 2026
    http://www.cleanairalliance.org/opg-price/
    Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking permission from the Ontario Energy Board to increase the price of its nuclear power by 11% per year for each of the next ten years.

    OPG wants to raise its price for nuclear power from 5.9 cents per kWh in 2016 to 16.8 cents per kWh in 2026. That means the rate in 2026 will be almost triple (2.8 times greater) today’s price.


    According to OPG, the price increases are needed to finance the continued operation of its high-cost Pickering Nuclear Station and to re-build the Darlington Nuclear Station.


    OPG’s proposed price increases are based on the assumption that its $12.8 billion Darlington Re-Build Project will be completed on time and on budget. Of course, every nuclear project in Ontario’s history has been massively over budget – on average by 2.5 times. If history repeats itself, the price of nuclear power will rise by much more than three times by 2026.
    $12.8 Billion (estimates) just to rebuild the plant that is less than 30 years old

    The initial cost estimate for the station was $3.9 billion CAD in the late 1970s, which increased to $7.4 billion in 1981 when construction was started. A year-long period of public hearings and study by an Ontario government all-party committee finished in 1986 with the decision to proceed with the project, which had then risen to $7 billion in actual and committed costs. The final cost was $14.4 billion CAD, almost double the initial construction budget.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlin...rating_Station
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #3849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    And then simply don’t build them on tsunami prone beaches.


    They knew the seawall wasn't high enough, and that the generators weren't high enough either. Fix either of those and there wouldn't have been a disaster. It was totally foreseeable. It wasn't a failure of technology, engineering or even foresight. It was a failure of bureaucracy and poor regulation.
    They were planning to move the controlling equipment to the other side of the reactors but the tsunami beat them to it.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  50. #3850

    Default

    Nuclear power is getting more expensive every year

    Solar and wind power costs are getting cheaper every year

    Simple decision.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #3851

    Default

    Canada will never achieve its targets unless emissions from oil and gas production are reduced. As such, any talk about alternative energy production--nuclear or otherwise--is meaningless unless combined with oil and gas emission reductions.

  52. #3852
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Nuclear power is getting more expensive every year

    Solar and wind power costs are getting cheaper every year

    Simple decision.
    No, it isn't, because our electrical grids can't handle intermittent power sources going past a certain threshold without a massive investment in a smart grid and/or grid-scale storage. Neither are simple in the slightest. And nor of course is nuclear.

  53. #3853

    Default

    PRT has never let the facts from the big picture get in the way of his dreams Marcel, why you gotta keep bringing up reality to get him down?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  54. #3854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Nuclear power is getting more expensive every year

    Solar and wind power costs are getting cheaper every year

    Simple decision.


    No, it isn't, because our electrical grids can't handle intermittent power sources going past a certain threshold without a massive investment in a smart grid and/or grid-scale storage. Neither are simple in the slightest. And nor of course is nuclear.

    Electric storage is becoming better and better. Many utilities pump water into storage reservoirs and generate on demand hydro power

    Also for peak demands, efficient gas turbine generators are used in Edmonton.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #3855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Also for peak demands, efficient gas turbine generators are used in Edmonton.
    Good thing you're in Montreal, you're just out of earshot of the literal jet engines out at Cloverbar.

    The peaking plant out at Cloverbar doesn't scale up well, as in order to be able to be spun up & down quickly they've got to be a small size. While they're efficient in their narrow scope & duty cycle they're not really suitable for widespread deployment like you're advocating, as they're nowhere near as cheap as baseload natural gas plants on a per-GWh basis. They really are designed to "skim the cream" when the price of power is high enough to warrant them being dispatched.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  56. #3856
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Nuclear power is getting more expensive every year

    Solar and wind power costs are getting cheaper every year

    Simple decision.


    No, it isn't, because our electrical grids can't handle intermittent power sources going past a certain threshold without a massive investment in a smart grid and/or grid-scale storage. Neither are simple in the slightest. And nor of course is nuclear.

    Electric storage is becoming better and better. Many utilities pump water into storage reservoirs and generate on demand hydro power

    Also for peak demands, efficient gas turbine generators are used in Edmonton.
    Pumped storage is highly geographically dependent and not an option that will ever be widespread because of that. Yes, peaking gas turbines do their thing well, but they're expensive and produce GHG emissions.

    Again, this isn't a simple problem. Stop trying to claim that it is. Changing our energy infrastructure to a low or zero carbon emission will take a century or longer, and simplistic solutions like banning nuclear or throwing all of our eggs in to one or two baskets will only lead to worse outcomes. To give an example: the increase in renewable electricity generation over the last decade or so has only served to offset the decline in generation from nuclear plants as Germany and Japan, among others, started to shutter plants. Fossil fuels' proportion of electricity generation remained the same during that time.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/n...-iea-1.5152080

    Over the past 20 years, wind and solar capacity has increased by 580 gigawatt (GW) in advanced economies. According to the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, one GW of power is equal to 100 million LED light bulbs or 431 utility-scale wind turbines. Despite that, however, IEA estimates that the 36 per cent share of clean energy sources in global power supply in 2018 was the same as two decades ago because of the decline in nuclear.

  57. #3857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Also for peak demands, efficient gas turbine generators are used in Edmonton.
    Good thing you're in Montreal, you're just out of earshot of the literal jet engines out at Cloverbar.

    The peaking plant out at Cloverbar doesn't scale up well, as in order to be able to be spun up & down quickly they've got to be a small size. While they're efficient in their narrow scope & duty cycle they're not really suitable for widespread deployment like you're advocating, as they're nowhere near as cheap as baseload natural gas plants on a per-GWh basis. They really are designed to "skim the cream" when the price of power is high enough to warrant them being dispatched.
    I understand. They should have sited the turbine facilities deep in the heavy industrial area, not so close to homes.

    Still could not understand why they took down the Cloverdale powerplant in the first place.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #3858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    I understand. They should have sited the turbine facilities deep in the heavy industrial area, not so close to homes.
    I can hear the Cloverbar units while sitting on my parents' deck on the far side of Sherwood Park, about 9km as the crow flies, over the din from SPF & Henday. They're ridiculously loud & the low frequency travels a long, long way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Still could not understand why they took down the Cloverdale powerplant in the first place.
    Money. It was an easy way to maximize profitability.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  59. #3859

    Default

    Marcel wrote

    "Again, this isn't a simple problem. Stop trying to claim that it is. "

    Sorry, it was a bit of a flippant response.

    I am one of the few posters who has been inside Pickering, Darlington and Whiteshell in Manitoba.

    I have supplied a lot of factual information on nuclear power.

    My point was that nuclear is getting more costly and the timelines are getting longer and longer and opposition has stalled new nuclear plants in North America for decades.

    It would take 15 to 20 years before a nuclear plant would generate its first watt in Alberta. By then, at the pace of technology and cost effectiveness, where will other power sources be then? Better to reduce consumption with LED lighting, better insulation, more efficient businesses and supplement the grid with wind, solar and storage solutions. Water reservoirs are not the only energy storage solution for solar and wind generated power. Alberta has thousands of abandoned wells that can store compressed air at low cost.


    http://energystorage.org/compressed-...y-storage-caes

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comp...energy_storage
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #3860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Pumped storage is highly geographically dependent and not an option that will ever be widespread because of that. Yes, peaking gas turbines do their thing well, but they're expensive and produce GHG emissions.

    Again, this isn't a simple problem. Stop trying to claim that it is. Changing our energy infrastructure to a low or zero carbon emission will take a century or longer, and simplistic solutions like banning nuclear or throwing all of our eggs in to one or two baskets will only lead to worse outcomes. To give an example: the increase in renewable electricity generation over the last decade or so has only served to offset the decline in generation from nuclear plants as Germany and Japan, among others, started to shutter plants. Fossil fuels' proportion of electricity generation remained the same during that time.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/n...-iea-1.5152080

    Over the past 20 years, wind and solar capacity has increased by 580 gigawatt (GW) in advanced economies. According to the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, one GW of power is equal to 100 million LED light bulbs or 431 utility-scale wind turbines. Despite that, however, IEA estimates that the 36 per cent share of clean energy sources in global power supply in 2018 was the same as two decades ago because of the decline in nuclear.
    This bears repeating. The complexity of this problem and the consequences of failure are unparalleled. Worse, we don't have a century to do it. It's difficult to see a way out at this point.

  61. #3861
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    Hypocrite! Look at the pile of plastic knives and forks

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being criticized after appearing to have plastic cutlery during a meeting, despite his government’s plan to ban single-use plastics as early as 2021.
    Animals are my passion.

Page 39 of 39 FirstFirst ... 293536373839

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •