It's worth noting that natural market forces drove this, not central planning from the state.
|
|
|
Can't fix stupid
- Thread starter Slim Jim
- Start date
It's worth noting that natural market forces drove this, not central planning from the state.
Seems to me, one in the same
Slim Jim
Well-known member
they would have to build 23 nuclear plants for this plan. Electric cars have batteries that have a life expectancy 7 to 10 years, most cars have a handful of batteries, so they will have to dispose of those batteries one day. NGV is so much cleaner then gasoline. It would be a better choice but the government is too stupid to promote it.
Yeah, I do know that. Natural gas use for hydro generation or heat generation in a central district heating plant is a lot more efficient than individual natural gas heating in a private home using a furnace that may or may not be properly maintained and functioning properly.
By the way, solar and wind can evolve to high-availability energy sources.
"Use of solar heat for district heating has been increasing in Denmark and Germany[SUP][12][/SUP] in recent years.[SUP][13][/SUP] The systems usually include interseasonal thermal energy storage for a consistent heat output day to day and between summer and winter. Good examples are in Vojens[SUP][14][/SUP] at 50 MW, Dronninglund at 27 MW and Marstal at 13 MW in Denmark.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP] These systems have been incrementally expanded to supply 10% to 40% of their villages' annual space heating needs. The solar-thermal panels are ground-mounted in fields.[SUP][17][/SUP] The heat storage is pit storage, borehole cluster and the traditional water tank. In Alberta, Canada the Drake Landing Solar Community has achieved a world record 97% annual solar fraction for heating needs, using solar-thermal panels on the garage roofs and thermal storage in a borehole cluster.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19]"[/SUP]
As for steam engines, they went by the wayside for efficiency reasons. Internal combustion offered massive gains in efficiency. Electric vehicles on the other hand are in no way more efficient than the internal combustion vehicles; the energy is just created elsewhere. This modern day shift is being pushed by perception, not technological breakthrough. On that note, the willingness of the eco movement to turn a blind eye to the toxicity of current battery technology, and the massive environmental impact of mining rare earth metals always astonishes me. Take a look at a pic of a rare earth mine, then look at the "dreadful" oil sands... tell me with a straight face how much "better for the environment" all this carbon reduction malarkey really is
Electricity centrally generated for battery-powered cars is a lot cleaner than thousands of internal combustion engines that may or may not be properly maintained chugging away and creating smog. Battery technology continues to evolve and become far more efficient than anyone could have thought ten years ago. Batteries will get recycled.
Steam was replaced by newer technology. Internal combustion engines and private home natural gas heating will go the same way.
Last edited:
That's impossible because too much will change within 50 years. Things will develop that we haven't even imagined yet. Also, with a FPP electoral system, there's too much discontinuity from one administration to the next for any long-term plan to come to fruition. I read some targets in this plan are set for 2050, which is already more than I think is realistic to predict that far in the future.
Whatever they decide upon now, it will all be rejigged and reworked a few times over in order to make things work by the time the target dates roll around, IMO.
Remember incandescent light bulbs were supposed to be banned in 2012? And now technology may appear that makes the old incandescent bulb more efficient than LEDs. http://www.popsci.com/new-incandescent-lightbulb-prototype-recycles-light
That's a perfect example of why the government should never get set regulations based on types of technologies, they should only set outcomes to target (like the level of efficiency rather than the type of bulb).
Last edited:
I think that's what has people in a fit, is looking at what we have today and expecting things to be the same in 2030 (when the NG ban is supposedly set for). A natural gas ban today would be an utter disaster of immeasurable proportions, even if we factored in those hypothetical no-cost electrical heaters for everybody. But what about in 15, 30 years? Who knows?
To answer my own question, nobody knows. But the government seems to think it can predict the advance of technology and dictate the outcome it desires in the future based on technologies we have now and can expect to see in the coming years. But that's completely foolish. The government has no business deciding which technologies should succeed. And that's the REAL problem. The problem isn't the effect the proposed changes would have if they were applied today. It's that it seems to lock us into a technological path that is certain to have no connection to the optimal technology that will become available.
And that's what gets me about this idea. I'm all for a carbon tax or cap-and-trade policy to allow the economy to account for the harm of greenhouse gases. But that only works if we let the economy go and do its thing instead of coming up with additional regulations to ban or support certain technologies based on some grandiose plan for the future. This seems so overreaching, and seems to completely ignore so many lessons from the past like this where government tried to anticipate the future. I hope it will make more sense as the plan is unveiled but right now it's nonsensical to me.
^^ Wiki? cause we all know that's a reliable source. But I digress... sell me all the could, should, would you please; not buying it. I prefer to look at engery with a rational eye. Also glad you bring up solar. As i understand it, the production is one of the most toxic process in modern manufacturing. Ohh progress
Youre missing the point. Steam was replaced because the efficiency of IC engines was even then, 20-30% higher than steam could ever achieve. Electric vehicles on the other hand have been around for every bit as long as IC vehicles, and the transition happening now is only do to political agenda. FYI cars are actually incredibly clean these days, and even if there are a few clunkers running around your argument hinges on the assumption that all NG electrical generation is of the latest, greatest, cleanest type; a logical fallacy of course. This also applies to your home gas furnace vs electric heat for all argument.. Like most eco-extremist, you'll glaze over fact (or maybe it's willful ignorance) to push your agenda. Bravo. As for the battery bit, of course they will find a way to reuse some of it (eventually). Doesn't mean it will be more efficient.
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Just for the record, I didn't vote for this twit.
Now for all of the liberals that roam this board and vote for these nutters, how about y'all pay for all of these hair brained ideas? I'm mean if they are such great ideas, for the greater good, why not take one for the "team"?
Now for all of the liberals that roam this board and vote for these nutters, how about y'all pay for all of these hair brained ideas? I'm mean if they are such great ideas, for the greater good, why not take one for the "team"?
Eco-extremist? Hardly. My hobby has been auto racing for many many years and everyone knows how dirty that is as far as the environment goes. I rarely ride a bicycle except when I'm camping, with a trailer and not a backpack. I just recognize that a sea change is coming as far as fossil fuel burning goes, whether in vehicles or in homes.
IC vehicles have reigned for years because the gasoline and diesel fuel was cheap and very transportable over long distances and it didn't need a large built-up supporting infrastructure like electrical distribution or charging stations for the masses do. Things are changing. Batteries for electric cars and wood for steam cars in the early days could not compete with that. Now alternatives to gas and diesel are becoming more viable than in past, especially for urban intensification areas where the bulk of population is growing in North America, Europe, and much of Asia.
Fair enough; but I have to ask, what do you think is driving this "sea change"? Rational thought; necessity; technological innovation? Or is it political agenda, strengthened by an alarmist theory, pushed forward by an inter-governmental panel of "experts"?
One problem I have here is that Wynne feels it necessary to place the entire onus of global GHG emission reductions on Ontarians and Ontario industry.
In 2012 Canada accounted for 1.6% of world GHG emissions and Ontario accounted for 23% of Canada's total contribution, meaning Ontario contributes 0.37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Further to this, according to the EPA, CO2 emissions related to fossil fuels and industrial processes account for 65% of GHG emissions overall. Assuming that figure is about the same between Canada and the US, this means that burning fossil fuels in Ontario contributes 0.24% to global GHG emissions overall.
If Wynne's wet-dream of forcing Ontarians back into the Bronze Age were to come to fruition and we all stopped burning fossil fuels entirely -- no electrical generation, no home heating, no nothing -- the reduction in total GHG emissions would be a rounding error lost in the noise floor. Ontarians could be living like Neandertals and nothing would change with respect to "climate change."
Her "thinking" and actions are directly and adversely affecting Ontarians and businesses trying to work here and it's all for nothing other than a photo-op and appeasing One World Government types like the UN.
In 2012 Canada accounted for 1.6% of world GHG emissions and Ontario accounted for 23% of Canada's total contribution, meaning Ontario contributes 0.37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Further to this, according to the EPA, CO2 emissions related to fossil fuels and industrial processes account for 65% of GHG emissions overall. Assuming that figure is about the same between Canada and the US, this means that burning fossil fuels in Ontario contributes 0.24% to global GHG emissions overall.
If Wynne's wet-dream of forcing Ontarians back into the Bronze Age were to come to fruition and we all stopped burning fossil fuels entirely -- no electrical generation, no home heating, no nothing -- the reduction in total GHG emissions would be a rounding error lost in the noise floor. Ontarians could be living like Neandertals and nothing would change with respect to "climate change."
Her "thinking" and actions are directly and adversely affecting Ontarians and businesses trying to work here and it's all for nothing other than a photo-op and appeasing One World Government types like the UN.
-D-
Banned
What are their numbers? How many civil workers?
The problem seems to be the tax payers are just accepting this and not forcing accountability.
I still can't wrap my mind around spending $1 BILLION and NOT building a power plant.
Where did the funds go exactly?
The economics of carbon reduction schemes are terrifying for sure. Anyone doubting that should read up on the economic impact all this hysteria is having on our climate crazy friends in California. It's even more insane when you look at what it will take for carbon reduction to affect a change in temperature (if you believe carbon dioxide is the sole driving force of temperature of course)
Same arguments once said for things like sewage treatment? Emissions controls on cars? Scrubbers on industrial smoke stacks?
So just do nothing because it will cost too much and besides, not everyone is doing it so why should we put ourselves at disadvantage? By that argument, we would all still be looking like smoky, sooty, smelly Hamilton today, where the air was so bad that paint on the Beach strio would curl up and try to escape almost as soon as you put it on the house.
What we used to do may have been sustainable to a point when world population was low, but that population has gone from 1 billion in 1800 to well over 7 billion today, and with China rescinding it's one-child policy, there are no signs that the trend will reverse itself. We have no choice but to scale back per-person impact on the environment.
We're not talking about emissions of particulate matter and volatile compounds; we're talking CARBON DIOXIDE... stay focused my friend.
Are you suggesting that natural gas isn't a source of CO2 emissions?
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:
| Coal (anthracite) | 228.6 |
| Coal (bituminous) | 205.7 |
| Coal (lignite) | 215.4 |
| Coal (subbituminous) | 214.3 |
| Diesel fuel and heating oil | 161.3 |
| Gasoline | 157.2 |
| Propane | 139.0 |
| Natural gas | 117.0 |
|
|
|
|
|