-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Global Change in the Carbon Age
- Thread starter James Lemon
- Start date
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
I did not say that. In any case, solar panels produce the energy used for their manufacturing in 0,5-2 years so are saving CO2 after that initial time. Improvements of the manufacturing process and the structure of the cells are reducing that time. You'll find here a paper about solar cells: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think.
Certainly, but I am asking again what your suggestions are.
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Thorium was a 'thing' in the 60s and 70s of the last century. India is currently the country still operating Thorium Reactors.
Other countries testing Thorium Reactors were Germany, the US, UK, Canada and Netherlands. The last plants in these countries were shut down in 1989 (Germany and the US).
This MIT Study (pdf) provides reasons why the Thorium Fuel Cycle never gained widespread use.
Replacing coal with hydrocarbons addresses the noxious by-products of burning coal but does not improve that much on the amount of CO2. Both resources are limited so this is no long-term solution.
Coal to Gas Plant Conversion was popular a few years ago, but this means a significant investment. The plant transformation uses resources and energy (more CO2 and pollution). This reduces the gain in CO2 generation.
Cars with lower consumption and more efficient use of electrical energy have a larger impact.
James Lemon
Well-known member
[QUOTE Michel Nigel
(The plant transformation uses resources and energy (more CO2 and pollution). This reduces the gain in CO2 generation.)
I did not see the article addressing this issue. From what I understood it was mostly about costs and feasibility also the difficulty in getting permits for the pipelines to feed them. There is no permanence in life and these plants are old to begin with "huge problem", asbestos, lead paint, and such. Building standards and technologies have changed a lot in 60 years. Companies don't refit plants that are going to loose money.
There are many new plants in the U.S useing natural gas to run jet engines that generate electricity to the electrical grid while at the same time heating boilers to run steam generators that provide electricity to the grid. Although the money is made or lost on the price spread, same as any other electricity generating facility.
There are currently huge investments being made in thorium reactors.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/
James
(The plant transformation uses resources and energy (more CO2 and pollution). This reduces the gain in CO2 generation.)
I did not see the article addressing this issue. From what I understood it was mostly about costs and feasibility also the difficulty in getting permits for the pipelines to feed them. There is no permanence in life and these plants are old to begin with "huge problem", asbestos, lead paint, and such. Building standards and technologies have changed a lot in 60 years. Companies don't refit plants that are going to loose money.
There are many new plants in the U.S useing natural gas to run jet engines that generate electricity to the electrical grid while at the same time heating boilers to run steam generators that provide electricity to the grid. Although the money is made or lost on the price spread, same as any other electricity generating facility.
There are currently huge investments being made in thorium reactors.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/
James
James Lemon
Well-known member
Jerome
It was only a question. You can review some of my earlier comments and my most recent. Obviously less consumption would play a major role. My point is that we should be using existing technologies and recourses that are cleaner burning and use them more efficiently.Before kerosene
there was whale oil to burn in lamps and before coal we relied on wood. We have more efficient things than coal and how we go about using them is another matter. Addressing the risks of using them is fine but what are the risks of not using them?
Canada currently sells its oil to the U.S. at a 20% to 25% perpetual discount because whether you ship it by train using rail cars, tanker trucks or carry it in pails you have to get it to market. The Canadian governments loose millions in royalties everyday because of this simple fact. Why because environmentalists are apposed to pipelines that are more efficient and safer than rail cars. So we continue to ship by rail using trains that mostly follow the water ways and waist huge amounts of diesel fuel. The system gets so clogged up shipping oil, farmers have a difficult time getting their crops to market. I cant imagine shipping tons of crude oil by this method as being good for the environment. Trains wrecks are nasty. Hot air balloons might work though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
James
Last edited:
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
So, basically, your suggestion is that the US should switch from coal to oil for electricity generation and use more Canadian oil? And pipelines should be constructed to ship that oil? Is that correct or am I not following you?
What should China and India do, then?
James Lemon
Well-known member
What I am saying is that there are more efficient ways of doing things and yes we did loose an opportunity to sell into China that would have reduced their GHG substantially. Having a inefficient transportation infrastructure for shipping oil to the U.S. is bad for the economy and the environment. The lost royalties could be put to work for other more eco- friendly projects or they could be used for social programs, like our healthcare and education. The oil won't stop flowing regardless. I am not suggesting that these are long term solutions but they would have reduced GHG almost immediately and at the same time meet current energy demands. Solar and wind power will not meet current demand. I am only suggesting a short path that addresses social inclusion, the economy, and the environment. for the time being. Liquid natural gas is also an alternative to burning more coal but there is a glut in the market. No I am not suggesting that we sell the U.S oil to produce electricity. They refine our oil and sell into the market. We already have clean hydro electricity that we sell the U.S. and hopefully we have more to sell them in the near future. But again we have more eco warriors trying to stop a huge hydro electric project in British Columbia.
James
James Lemon
Well-known member
Some Good News
Apparently our newly elected Premier of British Columbia John Horgan does not have any plans of shutting down the mega hydro electric project that is currently just getting off the ground.
.
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
How many MegaWatts is this project designed to produce?
James Lemon
Well-known member
Jerome
Designs call for an estimated peak capacity of approximately 1,100 MW, average output of 680 MW, and an annual output of 5,100 GWh of electricity. Total cost about 9 billion to be completed 2024.
James
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
So, basically, the dam replaces a nuclear reactor.
James Lemon
Well-known member
Nuclear power is prohibited here in British Columbia. I think this will be the fourth largest when completed there are others in B.C. that produce 2.5 times more. Canada is a Hydro super power there are dams back east that produce 6 and 7 times the amount mentioned previously.
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Do you need something to be mentioned in an article to think about it? The energy balance of any power plant includes the energy needed for its construction and the energy required for mining of the energy carrier. This was already demonstrated for photovoltaic energy in this thread and tends to be forgotten for the rest. The potential of losing money is certainly an element in the decision process.
So what is the installation rate for these new plants? Does it match the installation rate of photovoltaic (pdf)?
These are still dwarfed by the investments made in the past. There is a revival right now, but the only country pursuing the goal of implementing the thorium fuel cycle seriously is India. Here is an account of the early days in the US (MSRE, pdf).
From what I could gather your proposal is to replace coal with hydrocarbons and burn them in an efficient way.
Does this address the CO2 issue in a sufficient way?
Is there more?
How would you set up the electrical grid if you could decide?
What about heating, AC, transportation?
You must have some ideas.
Best regards,
Michael
James Lemon
Well-known member
Stave Falls
English is important but "Engineering" is more importantier!
The late 19th century was the golden age of electricity in North America; with streetlights, streetcars and lighting gaining popularity. In Vancouver BC, small local steam plants couldn't keep up with demand, and industries were desperate for more power.
When the Stave Falls project (Mission, British Columbia, Canada) was envisioned in 1895 hydroelectric technology was still new. Niagara Falls, the first large-scale hydro-electric plant in North America was still struggling to work out how to transmit the electricity to “distant” Buffalo, twenty miles away. But Stave Falls was intended to supply power to Vancouver, thirty miles away! It took years of hard work before the vision was finally realized in 1911.
Before Stave Falls was completed, the newly-formed BC Electric Railway Co. built a hydroelectric plant in 1898 on the Goldstream River, close to Victoria, BC – followed by the Bunzen Lake system near Vancouver in 1903. However, there still wasn't enough power to meet demand.
By 1926, Stave Falls was the largest source of power in British Columbia. In 1927 a tunnel was built between Alouette Lake (Maple Ridge, BC) and Stave Lake to add more generating power.
Although the technology in the powerhouse is more than one hundred years old, similar systems exist in modern generating stations. Today's systems are more efficient, using less water to create more power and energy than ever before.
Squeezing Almost Twice as Much Power from the Same Amount of Water.
The new plant at Stave Falls began to operate in early 2000 – nine years after the beginning of detailed planning and four-and-one-half years after construction started. This may seem like a long time, but it actually took much longer go get the first powerhouse built. An obvious difference about the new plant is that there is so little to see. Most of the operating equipment is underground, hidden from view. There are no penstocks; the water flows through tunnels instead. The new plant has only two generating units, compared to five units in the old plant; however, these two units can generate 90 megawatts compared to 52.5 megawatts from the older plant.
Canada is an ideal place to charge up an electric grocery getter!
English is important but "Engineering" is more importantier!
The late 19th century was the golden age of electricity in North America; with streetlights, streetcars and lighting gaining popularity. In Vancouver BC, small local steam plants couldn't keep up with demand, and industries were desperate for more power.
When the Stave Falls project (Mission, British Columbia, Canada) was envisioned in 1895 hydroelectric technology was still new. Niagara Falls, the first large-scale hydro-electric plant in North America was still struggling to work out how to transmit the electricity to “distant” Buffalo, twenty miles away. But Stave Falls was intended to supply power to Vancouver, thirty miles away! It took years of hard work before the vision was finally realized in 1911.
Before Stave Falls was completed, the newly-formed BC Electric Railway Co. built a hydroelectric plant in 1898 on the Goldstream River, close to Victoria, BC – followed by the Bunzen Lake system near Vancouver in 1903. However, there still wasn't enough power to meet demand.
By 1926, Stave Falls was the largest source of power in British Columbia. In 1927 a tunnel was built between Alouette Lake (Maple Ridge, BC) and Stave Lake to add more generating power.
Although the technology in the powerhouse is more than one hundred years old, similar systems exist in modern generating stations. Today's systems are more efficient, using less water to create more power and energy than ever before.
Squeezing Almost Twice as Much Power from the Same Amount of Water.
The new plant at Stave Falls began to operate in early 2000 – nine years after the beginning of detailed planning and four-and-one-half years after construction started. This may seem like a long time, but it actually took much longer go get the first powerhouse built. An obvious difference about the new plant is that there is so little to see. Most of the operating equipment is underground, hidden from view. There are no penstocks; the water flows through tunnels instead. The new plant has only two generating units, compared to five units in the old plant; however, these two units can generate 90 megawatts compared to 52.5 megawatts from the older plant.
Canada is an ideal place to charge up an electric grocery getter!
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
I want to express my thanks to all the participants in this extended cat fight for the wealth of valuable and interesting technical, economic, ecological, and sociological information that has been presented (and very nicely).
As to images, I think the machinery hall at the Stave Falls hydro plant is my favorite.
Best regards,
Doug
As to images, I think the machinery hall at the Stave Falls hydro plant is my favorite.
Best regards,
Doug
James Lemon
Well-known member
Michel
So far solar and wind energy do not meet current energy demands. Geographically speaking it would be prudent to choose locations for solar and wind energy projects where you can maximize their potential. Places like Africa might be a good location for solar but what about wind? Elon Musk did not choose Sparks Nevada for his plant to run both solar and wind power because he got a good deal on the property or because he has a good relationship with Donald Trump. We have a surplus of clean electricity here in Canada and the climate would not be great in a lot of places for solar. Yet some our politicians still like to build wind farms and think its a great idea.Make no mistake about it ,investments that are poorly directed or misused can have far reaching negative consequences.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Doug, Jerome, Tom, Michael and James,
Are there, in this long discussion, two separate streams of thought?
- Canada the powehouse of energy, would be able to help solve more social problemas if the delsuional "Greens" and misguided left wing USA influences wouldn't block our efficient export of fossil liquid fossil fuels. In this Donald Trump is not appentely seen as any idiot or malfeasant character, but a simply practical man.
- There is a Global problem of planet heating with man-made components that need to be curbed by all greenhopuse gas polluting nations. Here, incidentally, Donald Trump is generally viewed a selfish rather uneducated impulsive and almost childish representative of selfishness on behaf of Whites being in power with no filters to their wishes for. unfettered exploitation of whatever and whoever.
Do I have it right?
Asher
James Lemon
Well-known member
Asher
Do you think it is good governance to allow railroad companies to make huge profits while loosing billions in royalties that could be spent on education, healthcare and other worthy programs? Canadian tax payers suffer the consequences. Make no mistake about it ,investments that are poorly directed or misused can be a large waist of good resources. I think you missed the part about how a bunch of Dorito eating, Pepsi drinking basement dwellers were programed into believing that electric cars, solar panels and wind power are going to save the planet form "Environmental Armageddon". I am not sure how the perception of your president has any relevance? You Asher don't seem to get the picture do you? Good luck with all your race riots and violence that you folks like to promote so much!
Last edited by a moderator:
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Here, James, you appear to present a cogent argument that you have thought out well. I find that plausable and worthy to attend to. However, something makes you go from well-reasoned to flippant, as if you were Sean Hannity on Fox News, spouting Conservative Religious right dogma!
Here, I'm afraid that you switch over to meme concepts commonly infecting "conservatives" industrialists and the religious right in the USA who have these talking points to tarnish any thoughts of a rational approach to decreasing greenhouse gasses. You dismiss all amnd any arguments to the contrary, just like Trump imnsulting his oppositions.
We beleive it does have relevance, as he is opposing recognition of man-made contributions to climate change. He is withdrawing us from the one major climate treaty nations have painstkenly crafted, amazingly bringing around China.
Trump is important as his race baiting and xenophobia stirs up wounds and flaws in our society that should be healed. You talk of the value of social programs that could and should be enabled in Canada. Why do you not recognize that Trump opposes all these in the USA as giveaways to the unworthy. Trump is important as he has appointed anti-science people in his agencies and is underdoing the advances made under past presidents.
He may allow the pipeline Canadians desire to allow more efficent export of your oil to the USA. That however, (environmental impact assertions aside), does not increase emplyment here significantly and profits only the industiralists and those with shares in the benefitted companies.
Others here might very well disagree with my social and political priorities, but I really doubt you could get support that I "don't get it".
Asher
Last edited:
Tom dinning
Registrant*
Hey, don't bring me back into this.
I lost interest way back.
There seemed to be more **** on the ground than in the atmosphere.
As for the pictures, unlike Douglas, I don't have a favorite. Canadians plugging in doesn't appeal. Canadians are supposedly the nicest a people on the planet. The ones I know seem to meet that standard but the grin is hard to bare for a bloke like me. It looks more like a bloke suffering from constipation.
If anyone needs me for further advice I'll be out wading through the smoke from the forest fires surrounding me. Don't worry. It's just the annual burn-off. 75% of the NT is burnt off each year as part of the Conservation program. How much CO2 is that?
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
It makes sense that, when discussing global greenhouse effects, one discusses the world picture and the more local contributions one can see where they live. I noted the partial transition to solar and wind energy, because it happens in Europe where I live.
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Isn't that a bit of a disingenuous question when you ask it this way?
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Except royals on the loose, maybe?
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,
We are not permanent fixtures on this planet. In 250 million years the continents will return to a single giant opverheated desert land mass, devoid of rain as the currents will not come to land with rain and the see will be straved of oxygen and will turn black. Still, for the next foreseabvle possible human generations here, some of us think that we face an existential crisis well before our geological time is up. So where do you stand in this debate about climate change asserted to be threatening to communities in out grandchildrens lifetimes?
You have demonstrated knowledge of factors, at least addecting Canada, a large resource in carbon fuel. Based on that, some of us here would like to know how your ideas apply to the rest of hte planet.
I have tried to delineate in my mind what your global "Carbon Energy" thesis is beyond Canada. So let's assume, for now that ALL you say about Canadian energy issues are valid and your local solutions we'd support. Now what of the rest of the planet?
1. GLOBAL WARMING? Are you sceptical about evidence for progressive temperature rise over the plane?
2. MAN-INDUCED FRACTION? The extent that global warming is a fact, a valid concern, is a significant part of this rise due to the effects of humans.
3. RELEVENCE TO HUMANITY: What threats does the planet actually face from such rises temperature rise
4. REMEDIES: to Global Warming you would support and to what extent will they make a difference.
Asher
We are not permanent fixtures on this planet. In 250 million years the continents will return to a single giant opverheated desert land mass, devoid of rain as the currents will not come to land with rain and the see will be straved of oxygen and will turn black. Still, for the next foreseabvle possible human generations here, some of us think that we face an existential crisis well before our geological time is up. So where do you stand in this debate about climate change asserted to be threatening to communities in out grandchildrens lifetimes?
You have demonstrated knowledge of factors, at least addecting Canada, a large resource in carbon fuel. Based on that, some of us here would like to know how your ideas apply to the rest of hte planet.
I have tried to delineate in my mind what your global "Carbon Energy" thesis is beyond Canada. So let's assume, for now that ALL you say about Canadian energy issues are valid and your local solutions we'd support. Now what of the rest of the planet?
1. GLOBAL WARMING? Are you sceptical about evidence for progressive temperature rise over the plane?
2. MAN-INDUCED FRACTION? The extent that global warming is a fact, a valid concern, is a significant part of this rise due to the effects of humans.
3. RELEVENCE TO HUMANITY: What threats does the planet actually face from such rises temperature rise
4. REMEDIES: to Global Warming you would support and to what extent will they make a difference.
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,
Your forum topic is "Global Change in the Carbon Age". You have successfully articulated a seemingly coherent view of issues immediately affecting Canada. You are have been consistently forceful in exposing what you observe as a current crippling economic shortfall in wealth. The latter could and should support critical social programs, but cannot as a consequence. But what of the "Global Aspects" of your analysis?
Admitedly, we humans are not permanent fixtures on this planet. In 250 million years the continents will return to a single giant opverheated land mass. By then, the land will be devoid of rain, as themoisure-laden winds and air currents will no longer bring rain and the oceans, starved of oxygen and will turn black.
Still, for the next foreseabvle possible human generations here, some of us think that we face an existential crisis well before our geological time is up. So where do you stand in this debate about climate change asserted to be threatening to communities in our grandchildrens lifetimes?
You have demonstrated knowledge of factors, at least affecting Canada, a large world resource in carbon fuel. Based on that, some of us here would like to know how your ideas apply to the rest of the planet.
Thanks in advance, James, for addressing this wider topic.
Asher
Your forum topic is "Global Change in the Carbon Age". You have successfully articulated a seemingly coherent view of issues immediately affecting Canada. You are have been consistently forceful in exposing what you observe as a current crippling economic shortfall in wealth. The latter could and should support critical social programs, but cannot as a consequence. But what of the "Global Aspects" of your analysis?
Admitedly, we humans are not permanent fixtures on this planet. In 250 million years the continents will return to a single giant opverheated land mass. By then, the land will be devoid of rain, as themoisure-laden winds and air currents will no longer bring rain and the oceans, starved of oxygen and will turn black.
Still, for the next foreseabvle possible human generations here, some of us think that we face an existential crisis well before our geological time is up. So where do you stand in this debate about climate change asserted to be threatening to communities in our grandchildrens lifetimes?
You have demonstrated knowledge of factors, at least affecting Canada, a large world resource in carbon fuel. Based on that, some of us here would like to know how your ideas apply to the rest of the planet.
1. GLOBAL WARMING? Are you sceptical about evidence for progressive temperature rise over the plane?
2. MAN-INDUCED FRACTION? The extent that global warming is a fact, a valid concern, is a significant part of this rise due to the effects of humans.
3. RELEVANCE TO HUMANITY: What threats does the planet actually face from such temperature rise
4. REMEDIES: to Global Warming you would support and to what extent will they make a difference.
2. MAN-INDUCED FRACTION? The extent that global warming is a fact, a valid concern, is a significant part of this rise due to the effects of humans.
3. RELEVANCE TO HUMANITY: What threats does the planet actually face from such temperature rise
4. REMEDIES: to Global Warming you would support and to what extent will they make a difference.
Thanks in advance, James, for addressing this wider topic.
Asher
Last edited:
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
James,
That's pretty offensive, unwarranted, and, worst of, all inaccurate. But I guess that is to be expected here on DPR. Wait - this isn't DPR . . .
I, for one, have never promoted violence (well, now that I think of it, I once did advocate pushing an old shed down with a bulldozer), and certainly never a "race riot" (don't hear that term much these days).
It is sad when a debate over an important and complex issue descends progressively until it is swirling around the drain.
It would be so much better if we could just say, early in the proceedings, in a highly intellectual vein, "So's your old man", and move on.
Best regards,
Doug
That's pretty offensive, unwarranted, and, worst of, all inaccurate. But I guess that is to be expected here on DPR. Wait - this isn't DPR . . .
I, for one, have never promoted violence (well, now that I think of it, I once did advocate pushing an old shed down with a bulldozer), and certainly never a "race riot" (don't hear that term much these days).
It is sad when a debate over an important and complex issue descends progressively until it is swirling around the drain.
It would be so much better if we could just say, early in the proceedings, in a highly intellectual vein, "So's your old man", and move on.
Best regards,
Doug
James Lemon
Well-known member
Asher
This is obviously a complex subject and I would conclude that there is no one solution that fits all. Different solutions would be required, depending on where you live and the climate of that particular location, based on your needs and resources. For example, California and Utah would address their GHG emission issues and energy needs (and other needs) differently, due to differing and unique geography.
The province of British Columbia has a surplus of clean hydro electricity so I don't see a need for solar farms or wind farms (or for that matter, nuclear power). We face fewer challenges here in BC than other communities, but the point is that different circumstances and problems require different solutions. Electric cars do make sense here in British Columbia as we have clean power and the infrastructure is already underway; however, electric cars are not the answer for all, nor is solar power at the present time.
We must manage the resources we have in a responsible and efficient manner. That could mean making our existing fuel sources cleaner and fully optimizing them, etc.
If one is to entertain the notion of sustainability then you have to consider the social considerations, economics and the environment combined.
There are many aspects to climate change and the environment that occur naturally, in addition to human involvement. One should also consider the uncertainty principal. It would be prudent to practice sustainability whether one believes it or not, moving forward. By practicing sustainability one would have much to gain but nothing to lose whether proven or unproven. I think?
Question the politicians that represent you, demand good governance, corporate accountability, and responsible self governance.
I hold the opinion that if oil hit $150 a barrel it would be the end of globalization because distance would cost too much!
James