Take THAT Dirty Coal!

[rightsideup]

There is no such thing as "clean" energy. Every source of energy we use either creates emissions directly or causes emissions in its manufacturing.
Photovoltaic cells (solar) require huge amounts of highly refined silica for the cells and the glass that covers them, and the copper that interconnects them requires huge energy inputs to mine, process and refine the ore and then smelt and produce the wire. Add to this the energy burned to transport and install the solar farm, the energy produced by the photocell will never in its lifetime compensate for the energy required to build it.

A wind turbine assembly requires approx 240 tons of steel, 4 tons of copper, needs 100 tons of reinforced concrete to sit on, an electrical grid to interconnect it, a road to get to it, and several tons of diesel fuel to transport and install it, several hundred more tons of diesel to mine the iron ore to build it, the coking coal to make the steel, the oil to make the paint on it etc, etc, etc. A wind turbine too will never produce enough " clean " energy to offset energy used to build it.

How about a hydroelectric dam? How many thousands of TONS of diesel fuel does it take to build a dam that has millions of cubic yards of material, thousands of cubic yards of concrete, thousands of tons of reinforcing steel, trucking everything on site, cutting down all the trees, building the access roads, transmission lines etc etc etc. A dam might eventually break even on the energy it cost to build it, but only because of the massive amounts of power generated and the long lifespan of the project.

Renewable energy is is a feel-good farce. Nowhere in the world do "renewable" energy projects function without massive government subsidies. There's no free lunch. Instead of taxing money out of the economy in a blind attempt to change people's behaviour ( which has never ever worked anywhere it has been tried), the government should set realistic goals for emission reductions and let industry and technology meet the targets. Look how much cleaner and more efficient automobiles have become over even the last 10 years.

Instead of shutting down coal fired plants, set a realistic annual emissions reduction on them and give technology time to produce the results, or give them tax incentives to re-tool to natural gas. This would create jobs and instead of directly sucking billions out of the economy like a carbon tax, would worst case defer a loss of tax revenue from the plant operators for the life of the incentives, after which they would again contribute normally. That's how a smart govt would reduce emissions and help protect the environment.

But no one ever accused Notley or Trudeau of being smart.

very well said.
There may be ways energy can be created in more effective ways to lessen environmental impacts but they will always be there. Destroying the employment of people and creating a national debt is certainly not the answer.

 

[team dirt]

There is no such thing as "clean" energy. Every source of energy we use either creates emissions directly or causes emissions in its manufacturing.
Photovoltaic cells (solar) require huge amounts of highly refined silica for the cells and the glass that covers them, and the copper that interconnects them requires huge energy inputs to mine, process and refine the ore and then smelt and produce the wire. Add to this the energy burned to transport and install the solar farm, the energy produced by the photocell will never in its lifetime compensate for the energy required to build it.

A wind turbine assembly requires approx 240 tons of steel, 4 tons of copper, needs 100 tons of reinforced concrete to sit on, an electrical grid to interconnect it, a road to get to it, and several tons of diesel fuel to transport and install it, several hundred more tons of diesel to mine the iron ore to build it, the coking coal to make the steel, the oil to make the paint on it etc, etc, etc. A wind turbine too will never produce enough " clean " energy to offset energy used to build it.

How about a hydroelectric dam? How many thousands of TONS of diesel fuel does it take to build a dam that has millions of cubic yards of material, thousands of cubic yards of concrete, thousands of tons of reinforcing steel, trucking everything on site, cutting down all the trees, building the access roads, transmission lines etc etc etc. A dam might eventually break even on the energy it cost to build it, but only because of the massive amounts of power generated and the long lifespan of the project.

Renewable energy is is a feel-good farce. Nowhere in the world do "renewable" energy projects function without massive government subsidies. There's no free lunch. Instead of taxing money out of the economy in a blind attempt to change people's behaviour ( which has never ever worked anywhere it has been tried), the government should set realistic goals for emission reductions and let industry and technology meet the targets. Look how much cleaner and more efficient automobiles have become over even the last 10 years.

Instead of shutting down coal fired plants, set a realistic annual emissions reduction on them and give technology time to produce the results, or give them tax incentives to re-tool to natural gas. This would create jobs and instead of directly sucking billions out of the economy like a carbon tax, would worst case defer a loss of tax revenue from the plant operators for the life of the incentives, after which they would again contribute normally. That's how a smart govt would reduce emissions and help protect the environment.

But no one ever accused Notley or Trudeau of being smart.

you and I think exactly the same. Even a hydro dam can not make more energy than what it cost to make. The laws of physics prove this. We as people transfer small amounts of energy into one larger source to be easier to control and distribute over a longer time frame but we create losses every step of the way. I think a good plan moving forward would be to build a small power plant in each new neighbourhood being built to power a small number of places. Then capture the waste heat and pipe it through the same places for heating in the winter. Just a thought anyway. It could work great for city development. Ther s so much gas in the ground it would be nice To utilize more of it.

 

[S.W.A.T.]

Many don't realize actually how bad a hydro dam actually is, looks very clean but is actually very destructive below the surface. Nuclear is actually one of the cleaner forms of energy but one must look risk vs reward factors.

 

[52weekbreak]

Many don't realize actually how bad a hydro dam actually is, looks very clean but is actually very destructive below the surface. Nuclear is actually one of the cleaner forms of energy but one must look risk vs reward factors.

I read an article recently that stated the methane produced by rotting flooded vegetation in the flooded area was a huge GHG generator. If that is true, there goes another green energy thing to the dark side. Gets frustrating sometimes as there is so much conflicting information. Like the line in the Dire Straits song Industrial Disease: "Two men say they're Jesus; One of 'em must be wrong."

 

[dogsmack]

Earth can only support so many people. Areas of the world need to control the population. During this time embrace R n D and find solutions. How many times did it take man to succeed putting folks on the moon? Overnight fixes are not going to happen.

 

[DaveB]

Interesting commentary. I liked the article as to me it signifies change toward different types of energy production. Solar has a ton of things to get worked out with storage being one of the big hurdles - probably the biggest. Some very cool developments in that area with a variety of different materials including sodium. Thats right. Good old salt.

I look at this as the progress of technology no different than cell phones that started out being like a WWII walkie talkie that evolved to become smaller and smaller and then got bigger again as they changed from cell phones to computers to portable entertainment systems and they are still changing.

I do not relate this in any way to either the provincial or proposed federal carbon taxes. That is a separate issue even though it is on the other side of the coin.

Some pretty cool research being done though. Apparently some scientists have developed a method of turning carbon dioxide into solid carbon which can be used for most anything. Work is being done with graphene that blows my mind. Carbon nano-tubes can be arranged in a way that the end product is stronger than steel, thinner than paper and lighter than anything else with those properties. Imagine a 300 HP sled that weighs 250 pounds and is, quite literally, bulletproof.

All of this stuff requires energy to create and produce so old man oil will be around for a long time but for all of the technological changes that have happened in the last 30 years, the next 30 will bring 3 times that amount of change. There will be lots of change I will not care for but a lot of it I will. I might be an old B*tard who doesn't like change too much but there is some really cool stuff coming.

Eventually everyone figures out that fuel injection and computers are way better than carburetors and coils/points/mechanical. I remember listening to guys wax on about how much they liked to change jets as the altitude changed and I thought they were eff'n nuts. There will be plenty of missteps along the way to better technology but quite a bit of it will get there and even more will get lost on the wayside.

The new entrepreneurs are the same as the old ones: Those who like the Edisons of the world invent stuff and those who figure out how to use that invention differently and market that. Based on what I am seeing, those who are professional drivers now will likely be the last generation that does that.

I guess I strongly lean toward embracing good new technology and while I might be fond of old stuff, it really wasn't that good and am glad to move on. Vintage sleds are cool because they are old and extremely cranky but I wouldn't want to rely on one.

I agree with you...but there's a difference between different technologies. Example: while EFI was being developed, the guys that ran carbs didn't have to pay extra so the EFI guys could get a rebate. EFI was tried...got better...was proven....and is now the norm. It makes sense, it pays for itself and best of all, it actually works. Goes to exactly what Cdnfireman says about providing incentives and targets. The gov't challenged the car makers to get better mileage and better emissions...and they did. Power generation can work the same way.

 

[skid]

Earth can only support so many people. Areas of the world need to control the population. During this time embrace R n D and find solutions. How many times did it take man to succeed putting folks on the moon? Overnight fixes are not going to happen.

I thought the moon landing was a hoax....

 

[rzrgade]

I think what gets lost in all this is the fact that we need economic stability during this transition period .
No one is against greener / cleaner sources of energy .
However our government seems to want to force ( ie tax) it on to us at any cost ,while penalizing our current sources.
We would have much better progress with investment & R&D with tax breaks for real results on clean energy ,as apposed to penalties on the whole population for our current state.
It simply a case of being proactive, rather than reactive ....
If the financial incentives are there for green energy ,it will happen . Cutting into the profits of our largest employers & and stakeholders simply leaves less money for R&D

In the most basic of terms , no company is going to throw $$$ / time/ energy at this issue unless there is a generous return on their investment !

Think of this whole carbon tax thing . Is the billions of $$$ generated better going into R&D to reduce & renewable energy ..........OR getting swallowed up in general revenue ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Teth-Air]

Renewables rising: Global clean energy capacity leaves coal in the dust

An interesting article about the growth and use of renewable energy (wind and power) vs new coal plants. A nicely balanced article.

BTW New Atlas is a great science & technology mag with a great section on automobiles and motorcycles. Free on the net!

WHAT, coal is a renewable energy source, and it's organic, just takes a while. If you think about it, wind and solar are not renewable as when the sun burns out, these things are done. Funny how things get mislabeled and we all just accept it and regurgitate it.

 

[52weekbreak]

WHAT, coal is a renewable energy source, and it's organic, just takes a while. If you think about it, wind and solar are not renewable as when the sun burns out, these things are done. Funny how things get mislabeled and we all just accept it and regurgitate it.

From what I hear, in a few billion years, the sun will run out of hydrogen and turn into a red dwarf engulfing the earth. Looks like mankind still has a ways to go so we have plenty of time to F up this place. No need to hurry As old as I am, I doubt I'll see the next coal cycle

 

[LSPC187]

Its a sensitive topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.W.A.T.]

Some are so afraid of change and others are so afraid of their shadow.

 

[Lund]

Some are so afraid of change and others are so afraid of their shadow.

HAHA.....LOL, so true.

 

[dale+shan]

We all agree solar and wind is not the answer yet, but it could be used to supplement our electricity. A few panels on our homes can produce power and be routed into the grid while we are at work, power meters can spin backwards giving us a credit when we produce more than we use or at least reducing our bill for the month. I don't know the cost, but tax reductions could help, not taxing others.

 

[Lund]

Some are so afraid of change and others are so afraid of their shadow.

I have to completely agree with your comment.
Here is ONE, fine example of alternative energy in the 21st century.
I watched a program on this and it was extremely interesting, as the rest of the modern world is phasing out dirty energy for much cleaner form's. Countries like Canada lag's behind with 19th and 20th century dirty energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPi9HeDgN58&app=desktop

 

[rzrgade]

Ha ha ... Ohh boy .
So while we are in transition to cleaner energy we simply abandon our very lucrative current energy sector ????
You know we can pump oil and gas AND still seek out alternative energy sources at the same time !!!!!!!!!!!

The reason most other countries are scrambling to find alternative energy is two fold :
1: they are not fortunate enough to have it in huge amount 's like Canada has with oil and gas ! Thus until a new source is found they send boatloads of cash to countries like Canada.
2: We live in a world of global competition,if a country like ours ( Canada ) is stupid & naïve enough to believe no one wants our oil any more & they ( Canada )should simply get out of the energy market.... We are being suckered big time !
Please tell me you don't agree with this ?

In order to lead the way into the next great energy source , the first required thing will be $$ on hand to
Change and deploy the required infrastructure.
This utter nonsense that we have to abandon one energy source long before a feasible alternative is available is utter left wing nonsense .......lmao.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ferniesnow]

With the information that has been provided above, we have to agree that there is an environmental footprint in whatever the future holds. I never thought about the huge cost and in particular the emissions in building a hydro dam. The same for new sources of energy. The infrastructure is already in place (pipelines, transmission lines, generating stations, oil and gas wells, coal mines, etc..) and it just makes sense to clean up the emissions. Surely, it is a way cheaper to engage in that scenario.

 

[ABMax24]

Even a hydro dam can not make more energy than what it cost to make. The laws of physics prove this. We as people transfer small amounts of energy into one larger source to be easier to control and distribute over a longer time frame but we create losses every step of the way.

Unfortunately that is completely incorrect. There is no way that it takes more energy to build a hydro electric dam than it produces. Take the Bennett Dam on the Peace River for instance, it has an annual generation of 13100 GWh of electricity. When that same amount of energy were defined in terms of oil it would be just over 8,000,000 barrels of oil, or 1.2 billion liters of oil. So in its 46 years of operation that is the equivalent of 57.6 billion liters of oil in energy it has produced.

So please enlighten me to how the laws of physics prove that more energy was used to create this dam than it has produced.

 

[X-it]

You are correct ABMax24, but we voted for change. We got a bipolar pot smoker that thinks he is saving the world and usa will get a psychopath with a growing body count.

 

[skegpro]

In Canada we use a lot of energy to stay warm.Maybe we should all switch to wood and chop every tree down.

That's what the people in Ontario are doing that can't afford to be on Hydro anymore.