What signing the climate change targets will mean for you

A heart-to-heart conversation with Canadians

GOOGLE
http://troymedia.com/2015/06/22/signing-climate-change-targets-mean-you/
LINKEDIN
EMAIL
RSS236

By Robert Lyman
Contributor
Troy Media

I think someone should have a heart-to-heart conversation with Canadians about what the recently announced climate change emissions reduction goals would really mean to their everyday lives.

The G7 Industrialized countries committed themselves in principle to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2100 and to aim at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 70 per cent from 2010 levels by 2050. The intention of the Paris climate change talks in December is to establish legally binding obligations to drastically cut emissions.

Climate change targets will affect every facet of our lives

When I talk to my friends and children about this topic, they usually say that they want to be good citizens of the world and to do what is right for the next generation. In their view such targets mean they might have to turn down their thermostats in winter, reduce the air conditioning in summer, buy a more fuel-efficient car or take public transit more often, and pay slightly higher electricity bills. They think that the worst a carbon tax would do is add 10 cents per liter to the cost of gasoline.

They can’t understand when I explain it would be worse – far worse.

Energy is intertwined in every aspect of our daily lives. It’s not just ‘Big Oil’ that would suffer – it would be all of us.

climate change
Welcome to your future

Canada’s GHG emissions were 707 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2010. This is up from 597 Mt in 1990. According to Environment Canada, emissions rose again to 726 Mt in 2013.

Reducing GHG emissions by 70 per cent from 2010 levels would mean cutting emissions by at least 495 Mt to no more than 212 Mt in 2050.

To reach a 495 Mt reduction, one would need to eliminate all oil and gas and electricity production. That’s right – not just stop all new investment in oilsands plants, but also shut down every single oil and gas well, pipeline and refinery in every part of Canada.

If that were possible, it would leave Canadians completely dependent on oil, gas and coal imports from other countries.

Ending emissions from energy production would also mean shutting down all coal mines and coal-fired power plants, the lowest cost sources of electricity supply. Replacing them with nuclear or renewable energy sources would be far more expensive.

The oil and gas and coal industries represent major sources of investment, income, productivity and export earnings for Canada. Eliminating them would devastate the economies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Closing the coal-fired power plants would significantly raise electricity prices for consumers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.

Taking these extraordinary steps would only reduce emissions by 264 Mt! That’s not anywhere close to the target.

Policy makers would undoubtedly then focus on transportation, one of the largest and fastest growing sources of emissions. Oil is the source of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Oil is the only energy source that is technically able to power about 95 per cent of transportation demands.

Electric vehicles won’t do it – their market penetration is small and . . . they need a conventional power plant to ‘fill ‘er up.’

If we completely eliminated oil use in transportation it would mean going back to horses, bicycles and walking, and taking freight movement back to the era of the 1890’s.

Governments would have to severely restrict or tax the discretionary use of aircraft for personal travel.

Those restrictions would turn Canada’s 500,000 or so “Snowbirds” into “Nobirds” because air travel would be either prohibited or reserved for essential uses only. The travel and hospitality industry would shrink. Those friendly WestJet stewards might be left asking for donations instead of telling jokes.

Manufacturing will have to be shut down

“Energy-intensive industry” would have to be cut back. That means fewer jobs in vehicle manufacturing, mining and metals, industrial chemicals, cement, and pulp and paper. We would be faced with an ever-more jobless economy, with spiraling costs . . . for everything. How would organized labour react to policies that shut down most or all of Canada’s manufacturing and resource companies?

Activists dream that between “now and then,” several miraculous new energy technologies will emerge But that’s unlikely.

Never in Canada’s history, even in wartime, have we faced such a dilemma. As long as average Canadians – including many policy-makers – are blissfully unaware of the implications of these drastic climate change emissions reductions, we risk making absolutely disastrous commitments.

Robert Lyman, a retired economist and federal public servant who spent much of his career working on energy, transportation and environment issues, is the author of Climate Change Targets for Canada – Examining the Implications, published by Friends of Science Society.


The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

79 Responses to "What signing the climate change targets will mean for you"

  1. renewable guy   June 22, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    http://thesolutionsproject.org/#tsp-section-map

    We will work hard to have all the energy from clean energy to keep our modern life and have even more. This peer reviewed study has it down to heating homes, transportation, manufacturing. The engineers have been working on this and can have work for the next 50 years living within the limits of earths boundaries for life.

  2. FriendsOScience   June 23, 2015 at 9:56 am

    renewable guy  Thanks for the link – however there is a very significant difference in temperatures between the US and Canada and “We will work hard” is not a solution. It’s a predictive statement. Even Google engineers gave up on renewables. and the next question to ask is why are we doing this? Recent ressearch has shown that the sun drove between one half to thwo thirds of the warming of the 20th century and explains all of the current stagnation in temperature, so human carbon dioxide emissions are nominally affecting climate. Thirdly – why would Canadians agree to a huge sacrifice of virtually all of our comfortable lifestyle, when other nations that are not part of the OECD merrily ‘burn on’ – whatever tiny emissions cuts we make (in the big scheme of things) would be smothered by the non-OECD expansion. That makes no sense.  And a final factor – we contribute hugely to the advancement of society in terms of innvoatin and new technologies – but we get no credit for this from developing nations who cry that they are owed ‘climate credits’ – well, we are owed ‘technology and development credits’ in return. Ask which will have a higher balance.

  3. RichardWakefield   June 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    It would be far far worse.  Food production would drop by 25% at least.  No new roads, no fixing of any roads.  No steel, so not new buildings. no new ships, no new wind turbines.
    http://libertycannonmedia.com/2015/06/09/g7-leaders-agree-to-be-off-fossil-fuels-by-2100/

  4. RichardWakefield   June 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    @renewable guy Wind and solar will never power society exclusively.  It’s Capacity Value is zero.   The future power generation is in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.  Clean, efficient, 1000 years of energy, cheap power there when we need it 24/7.

  5. RichardWakefield   June 24, 2015 at 7:44 am

    FriendsOScience renewable guy This move to force us to lose our living standards is exactly what the eco-freaks want.  They want to end modern civilization, and cull most of human population.

  6. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 8:23 am

    RichardWakefield FriendsOScience renewable guy 

    Rich, you are sounding like an extremeofile here. No such thing. We can have an even better modern society than today with 100% renewable energy. Fossil fuels give us problems that kill life on earth including us.

  7. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 8:27 am

    FriendsOScience renewable guy The sun has not had a warming influence since about 1950. Its been all due to co2 emissions. 100% renewable energy solves the problems of fossil fuels and gives us an even better society than we have today.

    Canada has immense amounts of hydro power. This is virtually storage for variable power supplies like renewable energy. Canada actually is well set for renewable energy. Possibly easier to do than the United States.

  8. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 8:30 am

    RichardWakefield 
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14081

    Maybe Hawaii doesn’t know any better. Maybe you ought to tell them they can’t do it. Just maybe they aren’t going to listen to you, because it is now law. By 2045 they will be 100% renewable energy by law.

  9. FriendsOScience   June 24, 2015 at 9:26 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield FriendsOScience Funny how life spans increased from about 50 in the 1920s to now well into the 80s …ever since fossil fuels! All of modern medicine relies directly on fossil fuels for every aspect – from diagnostics with CT scanners and MRIs to complex surgerieis, to sterilization of tools, production of precision instruments and joint replacement devices, transplants, ICU monitors… imagine being in heart surgery on wind power! Not! Life is not being killed on earth.

  10. FriendsOScience   June 24, 2015 at 9:28 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience Dr. Shaviv explained in his presentation and in this article that the sun is responsible for half to 2/3 of warming 20th centurey and presently explains the stagnation. Solar influence is not just about TSI (which is dropping) but also UV activity, solar wind changes, planetary conjunctions, orbital patterns of earth and sun – many factors. The sun is the direct and indirect driver of climate change.

  11. FriendsOScience   June 24, 2015 at 9:31 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield We’ll see how they do – if they don’t need consistent power, okay – they might get by -and they are in a sunny place. Even wind turbines rely on diesel generators to run them when there is no wind so the finds don’t bend (by being static).  Wind and solar are the most expensive forms of power and most unreliable.

  12. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 10:14 am

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    They have baseload from geothermal. They will actually do great.

  13. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 10:34 am

    FriendsOScience renewable guy 

    Nothing significant coming out of the sun. So what is really warming the earth? A summation of several studies show that the last 50 to 65 years have about 10% contribution by the sun. That would leave 90% contribution by I would assume human sources of global warming gases.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth’s climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

  14. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 10:40 am

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    Wind and solar are quite reliable with a good weather forecast. This gives utility operators time to make plans for cloudy days or windless times. Hawaii also will use storage and other means to make the power that they need for their modern comfortable life. The utilities have many levers to pull to maintain a quality power source that we and the Hawaiians expect.

  15. FriendsOScience   June 24, 2015 at 10:40 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience RichardWakefield Citing a unique circumstance such as Hawaii being a sunny spot, with geothermal, and an island…somehow does not make the case for Alberta or Canada. 
    Geography: Hawaii = about 10,931 sq mi/28,311 sq km
    Alberta – 661,848 km2/255,541 sq mi
    Canada 9,984,670 km2 or 3,854,085 sq mi 
    Hawaii probably never goes below freezing – no vast distances for transportation. All big shipments can be brought by sea.  So, this is not a serious comparison or example of ‘success’ in renewables. And this example is still predictive. We’ll see if it works.

  16. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 10:43 am

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    Hawaii will make utility grade storage by running pumps during excess power generation to tops of mountains. This will be one of many forms of clean backup needed during variable power and variable loads.

  17. RichardWakefield   June 24, 2015 at 11:11 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield FriendsOScience There are too many aspects of society which cannot run off electricity.  Wind turbines will NEVER been a viable source of power.  Unless you want us to not have any power when the wind doesnt blow.  Do you even know what Capacity Value means?
    I highly recommend you read this:  http://OntarioWindPerformance.wordpess.com.  We have 600,000 people in Ontario in energy poverty because they cant afford their power bills which have more than doubled because of wind and solar, and expected to increase another 40% at least over the next few years.
    Germany’s system is on the verge of collapse because of too much wind power:
    http://libertycannonmedia.com/2015/03/26/isnt-germany-the-model-of-renewable-resources/comment-page-1

  18. RichardWakefield   June 24, 2015 at 11:17 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience You are very wrong about the sun and our influence with CO2.  The IPCC disagrees with you.  They claim that it is LIKELY that we contribute to MOST of global warming in the last half of the 20th century.  That means they are 50% sure than we contribute 50.1% of the warming since 1970.  We are NOT affecting all climate change.  Far from it.
    As for the sun, now we have this from the UK Met Office:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/You-need-wrap-UK-set-plunge-mini-ice-age-Met-Office-warns-one-five-chance-temperatures-drop-leaves-seen-17th-century.html

  19. RichardWakefield   June 24, 2015 at 11:21 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience No, it’s 100% from the sun.  It’s the sun’s energy that CO2 is supposed to capture.  No sun and we are an ice ball.

    There is great divide over the radiative forcings of CO2.  This is just ONE paper challenging CO2.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50754/abstract

  20. RichardWakefield   June 24, 2015 at 11:22 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield Hawaii has hundreds of dead wind turbines. 

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/6350/Broken-promises-The-rusting-wind-turbines-of-Hawaii.aspx

  21. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 
    Hawaii has retired the old wind generators and replaced them with better ones. That what do in the modern world. We improve things for the better. Fossil fuels are no longer better. They are destroying what gives us life on earth. Hawaii has really great areas on the island for wind resources if you check below.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Hawaii#Potential

    A 2010 study by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Renewable_Energy_Laboratory showed that Hawaii has the potential to install 3,000 MW of wind power, capable of generating 12,000 million kWh/year.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Hawaii#cite_note-7 Hawaii used 9,962 million kWh in 2011, so Hawaii has the potential to generate all electricity used in the state from wind and solar power,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Hawaii#cite_note-8 with 15,000 million kWh/year from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power plants. In addition, Hawaii has the potential to generate 2,800,000 million kWh/year from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Hawaii#cite_note-9

  22. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    90% of Canada’s population is along the United States-Canada borderline. Let’s take another example of an economy steamboating  along that is determined to reach 100% renewable energy. Which is Germany. They are now at 28% electricity by renewable energy. That would be at about Canada’s latitude and not that sunny. They can and will get there. Again its in the utilities ability to keep enough sources available to pull a variety of levers to make a quality power experience for their customers. With a good weather forecast, you can predict the power you will get in the next 4 hours. That is plenty of time to be ready with plans to provide energy to the population.

  23. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    RichardWakefield  No Rich it is about what is causing the earth to warm. The sun keeps us warm and yes that is true. The sun is a little less intense than during the 1950’s. that is what rules the sun out for about 90% of the warming since 1950.

    This is where the FOS slogan is just plain wrong. The sun is mildly cooling since about 1979 and the climate is warming at the same time. That is called no correlation.

  24. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy FriendsOScience 

    We have been having the hottest years in all 125 year instrumental record this century. The last world cold record was in 1911. So according to this we are going to get cooler.? I don’t think so.

    Not only is there co2 being added to the atmosphere, but many other man made gasses as well. They are a small persistent stable warming agents that last for centuries in our atmosphere. Telling people  to look the other way, doesn’t change what these gases do.. They help send infrared back to the earth to heat up the earth’s surface. These different gases add up in radiative forcing over time. The more we add to the atmosphere, the larger the radiative number becomes. This is very well worked out.

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

  25. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    What it amounts to is that the green house gases are overwhelming the cooling factors on earth. This was even shown in IPCC AR4. NASA just came out with this recently.

    This graph tells why we must go 100% renewable energy. The observed has not caught up to the green house gases yet, but it will. That balance will happen when we  stop emitting ghg’s.

  26. renewable guy   June 24, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Here it becomes more obvious just how strong the ghg’s are compared to the rest of the forcings. Our temperature increase comes from human green house gases.

    What does it mean to sign on to the Paris accord or COP21. It means a meaningful way of reducing ghg’s and keeping our lives in tact with the best climate we can get. The longer we delay the uncomfortable the climate will become.

  27. RichardWakefield   June 25, 2015 at 8:04 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience RichardWakefield Germany’s grid is close to collapse because of green power.  500,000 Germans cannot afford to pay their bills.  Business threatening to leave.
    http://libertycannonmedia.com/2015/03/26/isnt-germany-the-model-of-renewable-resources/comment-page-1/

  28. RichardWakefield   June 25, 2015 at 8:07 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield They were not replaced, they were left to rust.  Too costly to take them down.  They only last about 15 years.  Ridiculous.  Thorium Reactors can last 50 years.
    As for the potential of wind power, read this:
    http://OntarioWindPerformance.wordpress.com.  Wind has a Capacity Value of ZERO.  That makes them worthless as a power source.

  29. RichardWakefield   June 25, 2015 at 8:27 am

    renewable guy

    Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming. A number of studies detect a significant natural contribution to early 20th-century warming (Tett et al., 2002; Stott et al., 2003b; Nozawa et al., 2005; Shiogama et al., 2006). Some studies find a greater role for solar forcing than other forcings before 1950 (Stott et al., 2003b), although one detection study finds a roughly equal role for solar and volcanic forcing (Shiogama et al., 2006), and others find that volcanic forcing (Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007) or a substantial contribution from natural internal variability (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2007) could be important.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-5.html

  30. RichardWakefield   June 25, 2015 at 8:29 am

    renewable guy See also: https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/publications/2007-07_Tsonis-AA_Anewdynamicalmechanismformajorclimateshifts-2.pdf
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/02/new-paper-finds-negative-feedback.html

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-sensitivity-to_5.html

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/19/climate-sensitivity-takes-another-tumble.html

  31. renewable guy   June 25, 2015 at 10:38 am

    RichardWakefield 

    Mitigation and adaptation are both needed for the future planet we are living on.

    If we let things long enough without rapid mitigation (reducing co2 drastically) the earth will easily reach 3*C and 4*C in which our crops will grow poorly. In a time in which we need to increase productivity of crops they will instead decrease.

    Should the world move on reducing co2 rapidly, we keep our crop growing ability easier.

    We can go to a negative carbon society sequestering co2, using biofuels to run machinery for crops, using electricity where possible to replace fossil fuels.

    The problems of fossil fuels need to be extinguished and replaced with climate friendly energy.

  32. renewable guy   June 25, 2015 at 10:47 am

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 

    Thorium is over the horizon and not ready yet.

    In general wind turbines pay for themselves in 7 years. After 20 years you replace with the improved version that is more efficient and better performing.

    http://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/wind-learning-centre/how-long-do-wind-turbines-installations-last/
    How long do wind turbines installations last?The design life of a good quality modern wind turbine is 20 years. Depending on how windy and turbulent the site is, the turbine could last for 25 years or even longer, though as with anything mechanical, the maintenance costs will increase as it gets older.

  33. renewable guy   June 25, 2015 at 10:48 am

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 
    Hawaii will keep their money at home instead of importing expensive fossil fuels. Financially its a big win for them to go 100% RE.

  34. Hallucion   June 25, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    With electric cars becoming more popular, electric aircraft starting to emerge and robots doing more of the maufacturing (and now some logistics) work, I call bs on the whole “welcome to your future” nonsense.

  35. FriendsOScience   June 26, 2015 at 7:01 am

    Hallucion Electric cars are less than 1% market penetration and still have to be ‘plugged in to a coal plant’ at night.  WHAT electric aircraft? These are stil in the highly experimental range and have been for a hundred years.  Not to mention, both electric cars and ‘electric’ aircraft are manufactured using…fossil fuels! It is nice to be hopeful that new technology can save us, but the reality is that implementation and a change of infrastructure (i.e. power stations for EVs) are things that may take decades to incorporate, if indeed the vehicles meet the winter needs of Canadians. It would be a mistake to sign on to legally binding targets that are impossible to achieve without having any certainty that valid market replacements exist for what we would need to give up. Otherwise, it will be back to the horse and buggy days.

  36. FriendsOScience   June 26, 2015 at 7:15 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield  The catastrophic warming concept relies heavily on Svante Arrhenius’ work of 1896 – however few people realize that he amended his view ina published paper in 1906 and decided CO2 doubling would not be so problematic and we’d max out. Funny how no one in the warmist community even acknowledges the existence of this paper – here is a translation so you can see for yourself. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf 

    Using biofuels to run machinery is probably the worst idea ever.  A comprehensive assessment by New England Complex Systems Institute shows that the US EPA food-to-fuel policy on ethanol is one of the main drivers of civil unrest

    Prior to the outbreak of the so-called “Arab Spring” in the MENA region (MidEast/North Africa)

    Ironically, figures like Al Gore and eco-activists blame the unrest

    All of the so-called “friendly-energy’ you refer to is only possible because all the devices are manufactured with fossil fuels. And they are not so friendly when you examine their carbon footprint and lack of efficiency. What’s the carbon footprint of a wind turbine, for instance? http://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/ 
    So what’s the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?
    Its carbon footprint is massive – try 241.85 tons of CO2.

    Look at the damage a wind turbine does to the earth? 200 ft down of cement and rebar that will never be removed. Millions of birds and bats dead – bats especially die in a horrible way with their lungs exploded by barotrauma due to changing air pressure near the turbine fins – what’s so ‘friendly’ about that? They are still alive when they hit the ground and die a horrible death. U of Calgary researched this.

  37. RichardWakefield   June 26, 2015 at 7:58 am

    Hallucion I have been waiting since the 1960’s for my flying car I was promised would be here by now.  The only people who will be happy with their electric car will be tow truck drivers making a fortune from towing away dead cars.    There will never be electric commercial aircraft.  There isnt enough energy density in panels to fly a 767.

  38. RichardWakefield   June 26, 2015 at 8:01 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield IPCC’s claim is that it is LIKELY we are causing MOST of the current warming.   That means they ate 50% sure we are causing 50.1% of the warming.  Dominant means 50.1% or more.  I’m siding with the 50.1% assuming the IPCC knows what they are doing, but they dont, so it is much lower than 50.1%, too small to measure over the natural variation.  I maintain, there is nothing happening beyond normal variation.

  39. RichardWakefield   June 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield Studies on the sensitivity of CO2 puts the increase AT MOST 0.8C in 100 years.  Crops will grow poorly!!????  What are you smoking?  Plant growth in high CO2 and warmer climates ALWAYS do better.  Commercial greenhouses help CO2 at 1000ppm to boost growth.  So your fear of a future doom is completely unfounded and based on you GUILT of living in a modern society.

  40. RichardWakefield   June 26, 2015 at 8:19 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield
    Again, you are misinformed.  Two thorium reactors were operating at the Oak Ridge Labs in the 1960’s.  A Toronto company is building one in Chile to desalinate sea water.  China is putting 500million into one, building it right now, and expect to have it running in under 15 years.
    Wind lifespan 25 years?  No.  Their loss of power production has been found to decay at 15% per year.  That makes them worthless hunks of junk in less than 20 years. 

    Did you bother to look at the wind in ontario data?  IN the summer the entire fleet’s output is less than 7% capacity.

  41. RichardWakefield   June 26, 2015 at 8:22 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield

    Hawaii doesnt import oil.  They get it from Alaska and California.  They have to “import” everything for the wind turbines: concrete, metals, steal, and the rare earth metals for the magnets which come from China.

  42. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 11:18 am

    FriendsOScience Hallucion 

    The future is quite bright for energy storage, (batteries), solar and wind.

    http://energyefficiencymarkets.com/global-energy-storage-market-to-grow-15-fold-over-four-years-ihs/

    The high price of batteries continues to thwart the energy storage market. However, a significant drop in cost is ahead; lithium-ion battery prices are likely to fall by 40 percent over the next three years.

    “Lithium-ion is currently the technology to beat, and will account for the majority of the grid-connected PV energy storage market,” said Ni.
    The rise in energy storage is linked to the continued demand for solar photovoltaics, which IHS forecasts will grow as much as 30 percent in 2015, reaching 57 GW, 10 times the size of the market just seven years ago.

  43. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 11:25 am

    RichardWakefield Hallucion 
    Driving an electric car has 1/3 the fuel price over gasoline. Chevy spark has a car that will go 200 miles on a full battery bank. In 7 years you get payback for the difference in cost of the fuel. The mature economies of the world are going to reduce coal dramatically in the next decade. People with electric cars are going to demand clean energy.

  44. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 11:49 am

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 

    Likely is a minimum of 66% and less than 90%. The IPCC is also conservative in its findings in which only 1 in 20 findings are overstated. Combine this with the NASA graphs I have provided and you get a very strong chance we did the whole warming schtick. So there is up to a 90% chance we did it all according to the IPCC.

  45. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 

    .8*C? lol………………….
    A doubling of co2 alone is about 1.2*C going from 280ppm to 560ppm.
    Then there are feedbacks. Water vapor being a stronger ghg than co2 is dependent on the level of co2 in the atmosphere. The more co2 the more water vapor. Plus the other pos feedbacks.

    India and Pakistan have lost 2000 and 1000 people this year due to heat waves with only .8*C increase. With 1000ppm co2, it will be because the world was entirely stupid to choose that. Our modern society will have a really rough time making a go of it.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Carbon_cycle_feedbacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Arctic_methane_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Methane_release_from_melting_permafrost_peat_bogshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Methane_release_from_hydrateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Abrupt_increases_in_atmospheric_methanehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Decompositionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Peat_decompositionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Rainforest_dryinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Forest_fireshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Desertificationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Modelling_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Implications_for_climate_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Cloud_feedbackhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Gas_releasehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Ice-albedo_feedbackhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedbackhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Carbon_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Le_Chatelier.27s_principlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Chemical_weatheringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Net_Primary_Productivityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Lapse_ratehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Blackbody_radiation

  46. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy They ship it from Alaska to Hawaii and that is how many miles?

    Over 3000 miles. That is a one way trip also. They go home empty.

    Its true they will get their equipment as they do everything else. They ship it in. That is a way of life on Hawaii. But, once they make their own energy, its all theirs and not import anxieties any more. Its got to feel good for them.

  47. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5097

    One thing Canada has plenty of is hydro electricity. It is cheap and can make steel like there’s no tomorrow. You use renewable energy to free up the cheap electricity, and you increase energy efficiency constantly. Those are all good things to do.

    The United States smelted aluminum during world war 2 with the Coulee dam. It was credited as helping to win the war.

    Wind saves millions of tons  co2 and will increase every year this century the benefits it brings to our economy, culture, and climate.

  48. Hallucion   June 26, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    RichardWakefield Hallucion no one said anything about panels in 767’s.  also, the only reason aircraft are as large as they are is because if they were smaller, they would be horribly expensive to operate and maintain.  As for electric cars having 1% of the market penetration, just wait five years.  I think it will be about 20% or more by then.

    And the flying car?  Do you think people are ready for that, given how they drive on the road?

  49. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    The wind people are aware of the issue and are working on it. Yet when you compare all kinds of other animal kill by windows, cars, tall buildings, etc, the kill numbers are low.

    http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=857
    Bats & wind energyHow the wind industry protects bats
    The wind industry has taken a systematic approach to identifying potential impacts on bats and other wildlife, and is engaged in initiatives to reduce, if not eliminate, those impacts.
    The wind industry voluntarily studies and mitigates for wildlife impacts, more than any other energy industry, including for wildlife not protected by federal law. This is demonstrated by the inclusion of bats not otherwise protected under federal law in the recommended siting practices outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_final.pdf,” which are broadly supported by the wind energy industry  These guidelines include information on pre- and post-construction studies and analysis related to bats.
    In addition, the wind energy industry is helping to fund research into White-Nose Syndrome, a disease that has devastated cave-dwelling bats in the Northeast and is among their most serious threats.Origins of the BWEC
    In 2003, Bat Conservation International, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), AWEA, and the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory jointly formed the http://www.batsandwind.org/ (BWEC). BWEC is actively researching the issue of bat interactions with wind turbines and investigating several promising techniques, such as acoustic deterrents and potential operational changes to wind turbines, with the ultimate goal to reduce bat impacts at wind farms.

  50. renewable guy   June 26, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    FriendsOScience renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    This all takes work and commitment with the threat of green house gases chasing our behinds.

    http://www.theneweconomy.com/energy/new-holland-agriculture-on-the-path-to-zero-carbon-farming

    On the path to zero carbon farming New Holland has worked on its http://agriculture.newholland.com/us/en/About-New-Holland/Innovation/Pages/NH2-Tractor.aspxproject, unveiling its second-generation prototype in 2011. This is a truly revolutionary concept that uses a hydrogen tank and fuel cells to generate electricity, which runs the electric motors that powers the machine and its implements. No noise, no polluting emissions – just a little water. The NH2 tractor has shown in the field that it is a viable concept. However, the high cost of the fuel cells means that, for now, it is not commercially feasible.
    New Holland has turned its attention to developing a solution for the nearer future, which doesn’t depend on such high cost elements: a methane tractor that runs on methane generated from biomass grown on the farm and processed in the farm’s biogas plant. Methane propulsion technology can lower emissions by as much as 80 percent compared with a standard diesel engine, and, when using bio-methane, the machine’s carbon impact is virtually zero. New Holland unveiled its T6.140 Methane Power tractor working prototype last year. The first unit has entered service at http://www.thecleanenergyleader.com/en/nh2_tm_hydrogen/bellotta_en.html, and the T6.140 could enter production to become commercially available in only a few years, bringing a zero carbon future closer.

  51. Bluescot   June 26, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    renewable guy we are currently in a cooling trend. You have no science to back this up. If you did, you would know exactly what we would have to do to change the climate.

  52. Bluescot   June 26, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    renewable guy RichardWakefield show me the science.

  53. Bluescot   June 26, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    renewable guy RichardWakefield there is no climate friendly energy that can replace fossil fuels at this time.

  54. Bluescot   June 26, 2015 at 8:28 pm

    renewable guy RichardWakefield FriendsOScience Would be nice, but not realistic and not backed by anything with facts.

  55. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 7:24 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience Hallucion Pie in the sky nonsense.  Batteries will never run society.  They depend heavily on fossil fuels to produce, and dispose of.  They only last 6 to 8 years.  Do you even know how many batteries are required to run an average home?  More than 100, and they are $300 each.  (Why so many?  To run your home during weeks of cloudiness in the winter.)

  56. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 7:28 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield Hallucion 200 under IDEAL conditions.  Quarter that in the winter during a snow storm stuck in traffic with the heater full blast, the defrosters on full blast, and your running lights on.   You fail to understand that your power requirements are not for under ideal conditions.  Your power requirements are when things are far from ideal and you need to keep going.

  57. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 7:30 am

    Hallucion RichardWakefield So I guess with electric aircraft there wont be any more commercial flights. 
    You didnt understand my point on the flying car, so I’ll spell it out.  Predictions of the future are notorious for being wrong.

  58. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 7:42 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield

    The heat wave in India has NOTHING to do with our CO2.  Heat waves have always happened.  It is not beyond normal variation.  As you people say, “it’s just weather.”  Oh, right, until YOU want to support your myth.
    Cold kills far more people than hot.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
    Increase temps in the future?  Not what solar scientists, and now the UK Met office are saying.  30-50 years of global COOLING.  2C drop.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/13/new-study-suggests-a-temperature-drop-of-up-to-1c-by-2020-due-to-low-solar-activity/
    Not 2C for doubling CO2.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/19/new-paper-shows-transient-climate-response-less-than-2c/

  59. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 7:47 am

    renewable guy RichardWakefield
    Until the turbines die.  Their best option is Thorium reactors.  Once built, the small amount of thorium they need to keep it running can be flown in on commercial flights.  They will still need fossil fuels.  Yes, they get it from Alaska and California.    The US still imports half of its oil requirements from Saudi Arabia, how many miles is that?

  60. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 8:34 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience RichardWakefield

    Let me tell you what happens in Ontario.  We produce hydro power at 2.3c.  Wind power get’s 15c.  When the wind blows, and demand is down, they spill water at the hydro plants.  This is because wind has first dibs on powering our system.  Yet we sell that excess energy to the US at a huge loss, hundreds of millions per year we rate payers subsidize US demand.

  61. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 8:36 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience RichardWakefield
    Thorium doesnt kill any wildlife.

  62. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 8:38 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience RichardWakefield
    Where does the hydrogen come from?  Oh, right, power plants splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.  The energy from hydrogen is a net negative ERoEI.

  63. Hallucion   June 28, 2015 at 10:20 am

    RichardWakefield Hallucion actually I did understand it, you’re just upset that I didn’t say what you wanted to see.  While predictions in the PAST have been wrong, they’re starting to realize that and be more conservative with their predictions.

    Now, if you look into panel production (since you’re the one that brought up that point, make no mistake), you’ll see they’re getting better because they’re utilizing more of the spectrum.  Also, there are already full size (but experimental) aircraft that are now in the air with panels on them.

    Pair that with the batteries that are able to hold more energy, and that more companies are pushing for better battery technology, like Elon Musk, and you can see where it’s heading.

    I know where I’ll be putting my investment money.

  64. Hallucion   June 28, 2015 at 10:26 am

    renewable guy FriendsOScience Hallucion Exactly.  When a new system is created, it’s expensive at first.  But as demand grows, prices drop.  This essentially demonstrates that in a nutshell.

  65. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    Hallucion RichardWakefield Doesnt help those of us who only get 8 hours of sun in the winter.

    Your money your loss.  How many solar companies have gone bankrupt?

  66. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy FriendsOScience Hallucion 

    Prices of energy storage are coming down. Its probably up to a billion by now just for Tesla alone. What do think the other industries are doing. These batteries have a 10 year warranty on them, which means they will last longer than that. And then there are industries that will pull the packs apart to sell aftermarket power packs. Industry will get these packs to pay themselves and then they will pocket the difference after the payoff period.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/23/the-energy-storage-revolution-is-coming-but-not-without-some-arguments-along-the-way/

    In late April, Tesla Motors took a step toward upending home energy when it announced https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/01/what-backing-up-your-home-with-teslas-battery-might-be-like/, a battery for homes that can provide backup power, and that was paired with higher capacity versions for businesses and even power companies.
    Within about a week of the announcement, Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-08/tesla-s-battery-grabbed-800-million-in-its-first-week, the company had already pulled in $800 million worth of orders, with the vast majority of revenue not for individual home batteries but rather for larger, company or utility scale applications called PowerPacks. With numbers like that, the energy storage revolution may already be here.

  67. RichardWakefield   June 28, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Hallucion renewable guy FriendsOScience
    New systems if viable dont need government handouts to survive.  Computers is the best example, yes they were expensive in the 80’s, but they took off because they were viable, they didnt rely on taxpayers to keep them afloat.

  68. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    Bluescot renewable guy 

    This is out of NASA. And you have no science to back up your cooling trend. Look at the green flag again and we are setting records in temperature this year big time. The green flag is green house gas forcing that counteracts all the minor cooling trends we are in.

  69. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Bluescot renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    6 studies came to the same conclusion. Humans did it. Is there enough science for you or do you need more?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

    A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years.  This robust scientitic evidence is why there is a http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm.

  70. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    RichardWakefield Bluescot renewable guy 
    this one doesn’t support your point of view. I consistently find these mistakes amongst deniers.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full.pdf+html

    to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity (4, 6, 7, 12). Finally, a fraction

    of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural

    variability. The monotonic increase of the cleaned global temperature

    throughout the 20th century suggests increasing greenhouse

    gas forcing more-or-less consistently dominating sulfate aerosol

    forcing, although our technique cannot exclude other mechanisms

    not contained in the current generation of model forcing (22).

    This result is another link in a growing chain of evidence that

  71. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    RichardWakefield Bluescot renewable guy 

    This is funny. You bring in an economics professor?

    http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf

  72. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Bluescot renewable guy RichardWakefield 

    100% renewable energy. This is peer reviewed work.
    http://thesolutionsproject.org/#tsp-section-map

  73. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Bluescot renewable guy RichardWakefield FriendsOScience 

    what are you referring to?

  74. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Bluescot renewable guy FriendsOScience 

    I have nothing but science on this.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

  75. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 
    So you  know what is best for Hawaii? Are they listening to you???????? I’ll let the Hawaiians decide for themselves and they chose 100% renewable energy by 2045

  76. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy FriendsOScience 

    Just about all plants when first installed get a preference and a higher rate of pay to pay off the initial investment. This encourages growth in the utility sector.

  77. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy FriendsOScience 

    So they are working on methane which can be dropped in now. Any farmer with animals can make their own methane or they can ship  the manure to a central methane plant. Sounds like a very workable solution.

  78. renewable guy   June 28, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    RichardWakefield renewable guy 

    Watts up with that? I wasn’t born yesterday. The main stream science and WUWT are at odds with each other or better yet WUWT is just at odds with a lot of things.

    The water vapor at 560 ppm co2 will about be triple what it was from 280ppm back in the 1850’s. For every 1*C rise in temperature we get 7% increase in wv in the atmosphere.

    Doubling co2 from 280 to 560ppm co2 will give us 1.2*C rise in temperature which is well proven by science. That in itself is another rise intemperature due to water vapor is a stronger ghg than co2.

    The negative feedbacks the deniers dream of aren’t going to come true. Disney land is for dreamers and science is for reality. There are a lot of studies on climate sensitivity. If you go with WUWT, chances are you are going to be very wrong most of the time.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

You must be logged in to post a comment Login