Sign in to follow this  
Mitch Cronin

Crap from the right

Recommended Posts

"If Canadians were really worried about long term survivability for our next generations, they would have voted in the Conservatives."

This thought (copied from another thread and posted here just to add another thread title to the batch that'll let others know at a glance that some of us share their left leaning opinions) would be hilarious if it wasn't so sadly misguided... and simply dead wrong.

Conservatives, like the person who posted that, are apparently stuck in the belief that economics is the primary concern. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be controversial.....

It is the same as the Don Cherry episode.  Those stuck in the past are doomed to repeat it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mitch Cronin said:

"If Canadians were really worried about long term survivability for our next generations, they would have voted in the Conservatives."

This thought (copied from another thread and posted here just to add another thread title to the batch that'll let others know at a glance that some of us share their left leaning opinions) would be hilarious if it wasn't so sadly misguided... and simply dead wrong.

Conservatives, like the person who posted that, are apparently stuck in the belief that economics is the primary concern. 

Deny the economic reality all you want but thank the heavens the majority of Canadians can think beyond the tip of their nose. Killing off Alberta as you suggest is effectively a death knell for Canada. With your solution Canada would be soon “wishing“ it had the economic viability of Haiti. 

 

FYI...Next time you go to work, look around you. Less than 5% of your co-workers agree with the beliefs YOU are stuck in. In fact 71% totally disagree with you, and 95% somewhat disagree with you. 

93FAC7B5-6541-4528-AC9C-707A78F35EB0.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mitch, glad to see you back posting.  Well, economics is the primary concern ultimately - you can do all the good you want until the bank account is empty and then what?  Assuming you got your wish and all oil production ceased in Alberta - what is your plan to replace the lost dollars in the federal coffers?  Where does the money come from to pay for health, education, etc?

I don't disagree with the idea of moving toward a renewal energy future but we need the resource revenue from oil and gas production to pay for it and sustain us until we get there.  If you hate your job you don't quit immediately but rather use the pay from that job to afford the education to allow to you to eventually quit.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Deny the economic reality all you want but thank the heavens the majority of Canadians can think beyond the tip of their nose. Killing off Alberta as you suggest is effectively a death knell for Canada. With your solution Canada would be soon “wishing“ it had the economic viability of Haiti. 

 

FYI...Next time you go to work, look around you. Less than 5% of your co-workers agree with the beliefs YOU are stuck in. In fact 71% totally disagree with you, and 95% somewhat disagree with you. 

93FAC7B5-6541-4528-AC9C-707A78F35EB0.jpeg

While you are stuck with the belief that the conservatives have the majority, the reality is that while they did get 34.4% of the votes cast in the election, at least 63.2% of the votes cast went against conservative policies and wanted something more progressive.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6066524/canada-election-the-2019-results-by-the-numbers/

Your informal poll has not touched on the reality of what Canadians really wanted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seeker said:

Hi Mitch, glad to see you back posting.  Well, economics is the primary concern ultimately - you can do all the good you want until the bank account is empty and then what?  Assuming you got your wish and all oil production ceased in Alberta - what is your plan to replace the lost dollars in the federal coffers?  Where does the money come from to pay for health, education, etc?

I don't disagree with the idea of moving toward a renewal energy future but we need the resource revenue from oil and gas production to pay for it and sustain us until we get there.  If you hate your job you don't quit immediately but rather use the pay from that job to afford the education to allow to you to eventually quit.

 

 

What we need to do is develop the Green technology IN PARALLEL with the Economics of Fossil fuels.   Once the WORLD begins to start the transition to green energy and its offshoots then we will be at the forefront and can then begin to phase out the oil and gas production.   Until we are there ceasing production is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

With nothing currently available to fill the void that would be left by the loss of oil and gas production, we would see a serious economic problem.

Maybe we could build a large aerospace facility and start building green aircraft and get ahead of the curve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As posted in another thread.  Now if this gets implemented, it will start to erode fossil fuel need from the biggest polluters.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html

New York (CNN Business)A secretive startup backed by Bill Gates has achieved a solar breakthrough aimed at saving the planet.

Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius.

This is an existential issue for your children, for my children and our grandchildren."

biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong

Essentially, Heliogen created a solar oven — one capable of reaching temperatures that are roughly a quarter of what you'd find on the surface of the sun.
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.
 
 
"We are rolling out technology that can beat the price of fossil fuels and also not make the CO2 emissions," Bill Gross, Heliogen's founder and CEO, told CNN Business. "And that's really the holy grail."
Heliogen, which is also backed by billionaire Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, believes the patented technology will be able to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Cement, for example, accounts for 7% of global CO2 emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.
"Bill and the team have truly now harnessed the sun," Soon-Shiong, who also sits on the Heliogen board, told CNN Business. "The potential to humankind is enormous. ... The potential to business is unfathomable."
Heliogen, backed by Bill Gates, has achieved a breakthrough that could allow cement makers to transition away from fossil fuels. The company uses artifical intelligence and an array of mirrors to create vast amounts of heat, essentially harnessing the power of the sun.
 
Heliogen, backed by Bill Gates, has achieved a breakthrough that could allow cement makers to transition away from fossil fuels. The company uses artifical intelligence and an array of mirrors to create vast amounts of heat, essentially harnessing the power of the sun.
 
Unlike traditional solar power, which uses rooftop panels to capture the energy from the sun, Heliogen is improving on what's known as concentrated solar power. This technology, which uses mirrors to reflect the sun to a single point, is not new.
Concentrated solar has been used in the past to produce electricity and, in some limited fashion, to create heat for industry. It's even used in Oman to provide the power needed to drill for oil.
The problem is that in the past concentrated solar couldn't get temperatures hot enough to make cement and steel.
"You've ended up with technologies that can't really deliver super-heated systems," said Olav Junttila, a partner at Greentech Capital Advisors, a clean energy investment bank that has advised concentrated solar companies in the past.

Using artificial intelligence to solve the climate crisis

That means renewable energy has not yet disrupted industrial processes such as cement and steelmaking. And that's a problem because the world has an insatiable appetite for those materials. Cement, for instance, is used to make the concrete required to build homes, hospitals and schools. These industries are responsible for more than a fifth of global emissions, according to the EPA.
That's why the potential of Los Angeles-based Heliogen attracted investment from Gates, the Microsoft (MSFT) co-founder who recently surpassed Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos as the world's richest person.
"I'm pleased to have been an early backer of Bill Gross's novel solar concentration technology," Gates said in a statement. "Its capacity to achieve the high temperatures required for these processes is a promising development in the quest to one day replace fossil fuel."
Heliogen, founded by Bill Gross, must convince industrial companies it's worth the investment to switch over to its solar technology.
 
Heliogen, founded by Bill Gross, must convince industrial companies it's worth the investment to switch over to its solar technology.
While other concentrated solar companies attacked this temperature problem by adding steel to make the technology stiffer and sturdier, Heliogen and its team of scientists and engineers turned to artificial intelligence.
Heliogen uses computer vision software, automatic edge detection and other sophisticated technology to train a field of mirrors to reflect solar beams to one single spot.
"If you take a thousand mirrors and have them align exactly to a single point, you can achieve extremely, extremely high temperatures," Gross said, who added that Heliogen made its breakthrough on the first day it turned its plant on.
Heliogen said it is generating so much heat that its technology could eventually be used to create clean hydrogen at scale. That carbon-free hydrogen could then be turned into a fuel for trucks and airplanes.
"If you can make hydrogen that's green, that's a gamechanger," said Gross. "Long term, we want to be the green hydrogen company."

'No-brainer'

For now, Heliogen is squarely focused on solar. One problem with solar is that the sun doesn't always shine, yet industrial companies like cement makers have a constant need for heat. Heliogen said it would solve that issue by relying on storage systems that can hold the solar energy for rainy days.
Now that it has made this breakthrough, Heliogen will focus on demonstrating how the technology can be used in a large-scale application, such as making cement.
"We're in a race. We just want to scale as fast as possible," said Gross.
After the large-scale application, Soon-Shiong said Heliogen would likely be ready to go public.
In the meantime, Heliogen will require a healthy dose of capital to scale and it's working with investors on a private round of funding. Soon-Shiong signaled he plans to invest more in Heliogen. Heliogen declined to provide information on how much money it has raised so far.
"This is an existential issue for your children, for my children and our grandchildren," Soon-Shiong said.
Heliogen's biggest challenge will be convincing industrial companies using fossil fuels to make the investment required to switch over. Gross said the company has been talking to potential customers privately and plans to soon announce its first customers.
"If we go to a cement company and say we'll give you green heat, no CO2, but we'll also save you money, then it becomes a no-brainer," said Gross.
Its biggest selling point is the fact that, unlike fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, sunlight is free. And Heliogen argues its technology is already economical against fossil fuels because of its reliance on AI.
"The only way to compete is to be extremely clever in how you use your materials. And by using software, we're able to do that," Gross said.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time.  There was a solar reactor built in the desert in the US YEARS ago.  It generaated steam to drive a turbine and create electricity.  The mirrors were controled by a computer as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, have flown over it many times on the way to L.A.  Quite the impressive facility!

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

And California has a good problem to have...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-batteries-renewable-energy-california-20190605-story.html

California has too much solar power. That might be good for ratepayers

 

California set two renewable energy records last week: the most solar power ever flowing on the state’s main electric grid, and the most solar power ever taken offline because it wasn’t needed.

There’s no contradiction: As California utilities buy more and more solar power as part of the state’s quest to confront climate change, supply and demand are increasingly out of sync. The state’s fleet of solar farms and rooftop panels frequently generate more electricity than Californians use during the middle of the day — a phenomenon that has sent lawmakers and some climate advocates scrambling to find ways to save the extra sunlight rather than let it go to waste.

But for ratepayers, an oversupply of solar power might actually be a good thing.

New research published in the peer-reviewed journal Solar Energy suggests California should embrace the idea of building more solar panels than it can consistently use, rather than treating oversupply as a problem to be solved. It sounds counterintuitive, but intentionally overbuilding solar facilities — and accepting they’ll often need to be dialed down in the absence of sufficient demand — may be the best way to keep electricity prices low on a power grid dominated by renewable energy, the research found.

Advertisement
 

In a study published in March, New York-based researchers Richard Perez and Karl Rábago argue that solar power has gotten so inexpensive that overbuilding it will probably be the cheapest way to keep the lights on during cloudy or overcast days — cheaper than relying entirely on batteries. Solar power can meet high levels of daytime electricity demand without energy storage, the researchers say, as long as there are enough solar panels on the grid during times when none of them are producing at full capacity.

“It’s not like solar is going to be available all the time,” said Perez, a solar energy expert at the State University of New York at Albany. “At night you will need storage, and on cloudy days you will need storage. But you will need much less of it.”

A war is brewing over lithium mining at the edge of Death Valley »

California has set a target of 60% renewable energy on the power grid by 2030, as well as a longer-term goal of 100% climate-friendly energy, a broader definition that could include hydroelectricity or nuclear power. A dozen other states and U.S. territories have adopted or are considering similar 100% clean energy goals, and they’ll be watching California’s progress as they try to figure out how to make those goals a reality.

 
 

The Golden State’s success depends in part on achieving its goals without sending energy prices soaring. California already has some of the country’s highest electricity rates, although low levels of energy use mean monthly bills are relatively low.

Perez and Rábago coauthored their study with analysts at Clean Power Research, a company with offices in California and Washington state. The study built on an earlier Clean Power Research report, which showed that in Minnesota — a state not known for abundant sunlight — the cheapest way to run the power grid with solar panels, wind turbines and batteries involved building so many solar panels that their output would have to be “curtailed,” or reduced below what they’d otherwise be capable of producing, by around 30%.

Under a range of high-curtailment scenarios, the report found, electricity would be slightly cheaper than it is today in Minnesota — a conclusion that Perez and Rábago found to hold true for many power grids.

Models run by the California Public Utilities Commission, examining the state’s options for reducing planet-warming emissions while maintaining reliable and affordable electricity, have also found that a surplus of solar power makes sense.

“What the models said was dramatically overbuild solar, and either export it when you have excess production or curtailment,” said Edward Randolph, who leads the regulatory agency’s energy division. “Curtailment makes economic sense.”

la-1559678113-k7dkgn60zk-snap-image
A solar power facility in Borrego Springs, Calif., generates electricity on Feb. 11, 2019.
(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

The argument for overbuilding solar power isn’t new, nor is it especially controversial among researchers who study the logistics of transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. Utility regulators have always built extra power into their planning, requiring enough electric generating capacity on the grid to ensure there will almost always be sufficient power on hand to meet energy demand.

Traditionally, that reserve margin has come from fossil fuels. Overbuilding renewables is a similar concept.

 

Some experts, though, are skeptical about the sheer scale of overbuilding contemplated by Perez and Rábago.

Wade Schauer, a Sacramento-based researcher at the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, said Perez and Rábago didn’t take into account the costly transmission lines that may be needed to accommodate an overbuild of solar, or the landowner opposition that has frustrated solar farm developers in California and elsewhere. The researchers also assumed energy storage costs will remain “laughably high,” Schauer said — an assumption that makes batteries look less attractive compared with overbuilding solar.

How will L.A. replace three gas plants that Mayor Eric Garcetti plans to shut down? »

California got 34% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2018, the state’s Energy Commission estimates, not counting production from rooftop solar panels, which would add several more percentage points. Solar power has grown especially fast in recent years, spurred by falling costs, federal tax credits and California’s renewable energy mandate.

The state’s main power grid set a record for most simultaneous solar generation just before noon on June 1, breaking previous records set in April and May.

The growing amounts of solar power have been accompanied by growing curtailment, according to the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state’s main power grid.

Solar and wind farms on the California grid generated 223 fewer gigawatt-hours than they otherwise would have in May, with solar accounting for the vast majority of the losses. That’s enough electricity to power roughly 400,000 average California households, and more than twice as much curtailment as any month before this year. The numbers are especially high in part because of an influx of cheap hydropower following a wet winter.

la-1559697307-f7qvya0slg-snap-image
 
(Shaffer Grubb / Los Angeles Times)
 

On May 27 around 1 p.m., solar plant operators shut off a record total of about 4,700 megawatts of capacity at the same time — nearly 40% of the entire solar capacity installed on the California grid.

Those numbers sound large, but they’re still relatively small, said Mark Rothleder, the grid operator’s vice president for market quality and regulatory affairs.

In 2018, less than 2% of potential solar generation was curtailed, Rothleder said, a number that may reach 3%-4% this year. The vast majority of curtailments happen through a competitive market, where solar and wind plant operators are paid to ramp down production. In rare instances, the grid operator will manually order certain facilities to ramp down.

Rothleder sees some overbuilding as a good thing, because it creates flexibility for the grid operator. Instead of relying entirely on gas-fired power plants to ramp up and down to match swings in demand, the nonprofit agency can get creative with solar farms, curtailing their production as needed or holding some solar in reserve for times when energy demand might jump unexpectedly.

The key question is how much extra solar power is beneficial, and how much is a waste of money. Rothleder said overbuilding and curtailment are no substitute for the types of steps California will eventually need to take to fully replace fossil fuels with clean energy, such as investing in big energy storage projects, sharing more solar and wind power with neighboring states, and designing electricity rates that encourage people to shift their energy use to times of day when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

“If [curtailment] starts inching up toward 10%, and greater than 10%, you have to start looking at it and asking what else can you be doing,” Rothleder said. “I don’t think at that point just building more solar is the right thing to do.”

California’s wildfire threat could be an opportunity for clean-energy microgrids »

Lawmakers in Sacramento have debated the types of steps described by Rothleder, but haven’t found much consensus.

Last year, for instance, the Legislature once again rejected then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan for greater sharing of renewable energy across the West. The proposal would have unified the region’s disparate power grids, reducing curtailment by allowing greater sharing of renewable energy across state lines, but lawmakers feared California could lose its sovereignty over its energy supply.

More recently, a bill that would have required huge amounts of large-scale, long-duration energy storage — a type of storage for which lithium-ion batteries aren’t well-suited — was pulled from the Senate floor, amid concerns it would burden consumers with steep costs and prop up a controversial hydropower project near Joshua Tree National Park.

Those proposals were driven in part by rising alarm over curtailment, and by the revelation that California sometimes pays other states to take its excess solar power. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Ralph Cavanagh, for instance, wrote last year that lawmakers should support Brown’s regional power grid plan because “wasting growing amounts of our state’s clean energy is no way to advance California’s ambitious energy and climate goals.”

Part of the problem with these debates is that it’s hard to predict what different technologies will cost in the coming decades, said James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis. Maybe solar will keep getting cheaper, and battery costs won’t fall as much as analysts expect. Or maybe not.

“If you think you know what all the costs and operating characteristics of resources will be 20 years from now, we can write fancy computer models that will optimize all that. But we don’t really know,” Bushnell said. “Too many studies circulate implying that we do.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Seeker. I appreciate your warm tone, thanks.

You say, "we need the resource revenue from oil and gas production", but that's just not so. That's using the old, out-dated, un-sustainable  line of thought. What we need is the trees that stand on the "oil sands" to stay right where they are, and the bitumen to stay in the ground.

It's time Billionaires started to pay out a few more pounds of their ridiculous hordes. There is absolutely no shortage of available wealth for all sorts of good-for-the-planet ideas if we add some serious tax to those with endless truck-loads of money. The gap in wealth between the working poor and the yacht riding rich is insanely large and needs serious correction. Looking simply for "returns for investors" has been the goal for too long and has, in part, caused this whole problem. Priorities need to change, and as I see it, they are. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mitch Cronin said:

Hi Seeker. I appreciate your warm tone, thanks.

You say, "we need the resource revenue from oil and gas production", but that's just not so. That's using the old, out-dated, un-sustainable  line of thought. What we need is the trees that stand on the "oil sands" to stay right where they are, and the bitumen to stay in the ground.

It's time Billionaires started to pay out a few more pounds of their ridiculous hordes. There is absolutely no shortage of available wealth for all sorts of good-for-the-planet ideas if we add some serious tax to those with endless truck-loads of money. The gap in wealth between the working poor and the yacht riding rich is insanely large and needs serious correction. Looking simply for "returns for investors" has been the goal for too long and has, in part, caused this whole problem. Priorities need to change, and as I see it, they are. 

The trees are doing very well and any that are cut down are replaced.  Not sure why you think the oil sands are destroying trees?  

 
 
Dec 4, 2014 - As far as planting is concerned, the two things that set the tar sands apart from other contracts is that the ground is incredibly hard and the variety of species planted is greater. By contrast, on a normal tree-planting contract it's not uncommon to plant an entire block with a single species of tree.
The tree planting, which was highlighted during a ceremony attended by Suncor executives and employees, local politicians and other local stakeholders, featured Ivy Wigmore, an elder with the Mikisew Cree First Nation who planted one of the first trees on Suncor's oil sands site in the late 1960s.
Canada's oil sands industry is committed to reducing its footprint, reclaiming all lands ... The process includes monitoring, seeding, fertilizing, tree planting, seed ...
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch rather than being concerned for the trees in Alberta, this is closer to where you live and is more worthy of your attention.   😀

Tires fly off 2 vehicles on GTA highways Tuesday, bounce into oncoming lanes: OPP

 
‎Today, ‎November ‎19, ‎2019, ‏‎24 minutes ago | Ryan Rocca
"The tires then both bounced over the concrete wall into the westbound side striking another vehicle."
Jun 12, 2019 - Toronto police have confirmed the tire came from a vehicle being driven by a 56-year-old off-duty officer. Ontario Provincial Police say they ...
Jun 19, 2019 - In that instance, a tire came off a vehicle and crashed through the ... RELATED: Ontario roads and highways have a long history of flying tire ...
Jun 12, 2019 - It's not the first time a flying tire has led to tragedy on Ontario ... Headline: Five cars involved in minor crashes after tire flies off truck on 401.
Jul 5, 2019 - So far this year, OPP official says they've seen about 60 to 70 instances of tires flying off vehicles on OPP-patrolled roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this