February 18th, 2019

Where’s the benefit from carbon pricing?

By Letter to the Editor on September 13, 2018.

Ms. Lavallee’s letter of Sept. 6 informed us that “Carbon pricing has shown it works.” My first reaction was to think that either she is delusional or she lives on another planet.

She did not provide any evidence for her statement, only projected fear-mongering. In the real world, Germany’s carbon trade, for the last 10 years, has not saved one gram of CO2 despite their green expenses approaching $1 trillion. Australia just fired their prime minister on the basis of his infatuation with renewables that have destroyed the electricity industry in that country. I can go on and on, but I will save this for another letter.

For now, let’s examine the mechanisms of “carbon trading” and “carbon Taxes” for everybody’s benefit, especially advisers of our governments – both federal and provincial. We need to know if any carbon is saved from the environment with these schemes.

In “carbon trading” schemes the renewable technologies are seemingly issued a certificate of credit for every MWh that they have produced without emissions of CO2. Then, industry that releases CO2 to the atmosphere purchases these certificates. This way the polluting industry buys permission to pollute legally. The bureaucracies are happy because all their industries meet their standard. Politicians can posture as protectors of our globe. But wait a minute. How much are CO2 emissions actually reduced? Accountants will tell you that +1-1=0 benefit for the environment. Hard to understand how this works. Follow the money, instead, to find out who is lobbying our gullible politicians.

“Carbon taxes” that the government collects finance subsidies to renewables (they call it “investment in infrastructure”). That is the second money trail. Now let’s look at the carbon trail. A few hundred dollars annually for carbon tax will not be a deterrent to middle- and high-income individuals. Most will absorb it and carry on as usual. The ones that will be deterred are the poorer sector of our society. But our government refunds this expense for low-income citizens – thus removing the incentive to save on CO2. Here again, how much CO2 is saved and what does the environment gets out of all this?

So, what was Ms. Lavallee’s incentive for this letter? She is not living on another planet. She sent this letter from Ontario – a province that is just cancelling its carbon trading program. I’m left to wonder.

Cosmos Voutsinos


Share this story:


53 Responses to “Where’s the benefit from carbon pricing?”

  1. Fescue says:

    Germany’s CO2 emissions have steadily dropped with its investment in renewable energy technologies, with reductions spread across all sectors of the economy – there is no silver bullet (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/20170320_uba_greenhousegasemissions1990_2016_first_estimate.png?itok=QSNCl8EF).

    Australia has political problems – parties fighting for power. Even the Economist sees no relationship to renewable energy policies (https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/09/04/why-australia-loses-prime-ministers)

    And it is not hard to understand that ‘carbon trading’ caps emissions and industry pays for their pollution based on market principles – industry looks for its cheapest solution: pay for pollution or reduce pollution. ‘Carbon levies’ is a pay-for-pollution scheme added to carbon-intensive processes like energy utilities, cement, steel, etc. Again, in a competitive market, industries will look for the cheaper alternative: pay the tax or reduce emissions. The former sets the emissions and prices float in the market; the latter sets the price and the emissions float based on its impact on consumption. In a market free of conservative manipulation, these incentive schemes will have an effect, as Ms. Lavallee suggests.

    The question that Mr. Voutsinos doesn’t broach is: “What will work to reduce our carbon emissions?” We know from his previous letters and letters from the Energy Coalegium that they don’t accept the message from the world’s scientists that climate change is a clear and present danger to our ecosystems, our economy and, therefore, human civilization. Having positive political efforts to reduce human emissions overturned with the election of every base-pleasing conservative government is counterproductive and, ultimately, irresponsibility. Unfortunately, it is an irresponsibility these politicians will be accountable for only in posterity.

    • Dennis Bremner says:

      Simple an obvious answer Fescue New Generation Nuclear some call them Pebble Bed but they go by various names, they use the depleted uranium we now store so no new uranium needed. They are cooled by various means the most notable at the moment is liquified salt. They do not runaway and cannot meltdown and are totally scalable. From a single 40 foot container that could power a neighbourhood too stacked units that can provide power for cities.

      China is building 54 over 10 years. They sold 5 to Saudii Arabia.

      As for your shot at Conservatives perhaps they realize that one province in a Country that produces 1.4% of GHGs to run around like a chicken with their head cut off yelling the sky is falling is atypical NDP and boychild tactics.
      Alberta produces less than1 % GHGs feeding fuels and Chemicals to North America. If you gave it any thought you would realize that fighting a less than 1% GHG contribution is strictly “show” for politicians that need a dogwhistle and this dog whistle is boychild and NDP in spades!!
      If we were to go to zero GHG’s the planet wouldn’t notice and if you believe were screwed, well after responding to the boychild/NDP dog whistle, were still screwed!!

      • Fescue says:

        Tell me, db, where there is a fourth generation nuclear power plant commercially operating in the world.

        Tell me, db, how many will have to be built to replace coal and natural gas power generation facilities.

        As for the gamesmanship around percentages, the only rational way to measure emissions is per capita – all of these emissions are ultimately related to our consumption of goods and our comfort. Arbitrarily drawing a line around a population and saying this is our and this is theirs is absurd.

        • Dennis Bremner says:

          Glad you asked but I can tell you will not like the answer. There is a 4th gen running in Idaho National Laboratories just outside of Idaho falls and Atomic City.
          Don’t believe me? I’m shocked lol
          Zoom in at these coordinates you see the train cars that carry the Uranium. The white building below the rail cars is where the Uranium unloaded and the purple roof is the 4th Gen building.
          It has been running for 4 years.

          There is another running in California under the guidance of the US Naval Research Facility which is known as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). that has been running, I think for 3 years.
          China just commissioned there first of 52/54 Pebble Beds and are doing full up trials as we speak.

          if you would like a closer look. Here is a company that INL and ORNL are sponsoring for a build now.

          Second answer: Scalability is the advantage of Pebble Beds the chinese units will produce 210 MWatts . The reason that this design is significant is because it needs no infrastructure. So the reactor can be located and built on demand requirements. So a Pebble can be located outside a large Chinese City and feed that city remaining isolated from the grid unless excess power needed elsewhere. This prevents the shutdowns,idles and restarts that occur with present technology.

          Third Answer: Its absurd if you are the only one’s bothering to fight the fight! We are an energy producer. Those that consume it should be charged for that consumption, the GHGs are theirs not the production facility. I note people discuss carbon credits but roll their eyes when you tell them that Alberta’s trees literally wipe out our GHG contribution to a point you won’t get a liberal or NDP to mention it because it silences their dogwhistle. Do I wish China was not at 30%, yes but are we able to do anything about it, NO! Certainly not at a Provincial level. What amazes me is how people sign up for total stupidity without actually thinking about impacts of their own decisions. Rare Earth Metal Mining is killing the poor today, so give up your cellphone ASAP!!

          So Fescue, I assume you believe that Climate Change is real and as long as you are doing something that’s better than nothing! Thats where we disagree because chart after chart shows countries that do something, in the end achieve nothing other than feel good! Without Nuclear we will be looking at derelict windmills in 10 years that we cannot afford to repair that never achieved anything worth the effort!

          • Fescue says:

            So, the answer to my question is that there are zero fourth generation nuclear plants in operation – just military and research facilities, to date.

            If the scalability of this technology is 231 MW, then roughly 10,000 units will have to be installed to replace only the coal-fired capacity globally. Three times this much will be required if electricity will replace natural gas heating and fossil fuels for transportation. That would be a rough number of 30,000 units.

            To be clear, I’m not opposed to this technology. The point is that, without a wartime mobilization of resources, it is unlikely this much investment will occur in the timelines demanded to stabilize the climate in a safe range within which the biosphere has evolved.

            The solution for today is finding greater efficiencies in production and curbing wasteful consumption. Another solution for today is replacing coal-fired plants with windmills and solar – which is already happening and will be encouraged even more with effective market correcting efforts, like emission caps and levies.

            • Dennis Bremner says:

              You never read ANY of the material did you, why am I not surprised, these units can be scaled into the gigawatts, but you would have to read the stuff I posted to determine that! 210 megawatts is what the Chinese are deploying on startup.

              The technology has been proven over years this is what we need for Fort Mac so we can build refineries. The grid cannot handle it at the moment so thats why the NDP can’t fathom how to get a refinery there. Windmills? How many windmills will you need if you need your ” unread 10,000 reactors argument” ? You are a joke and really have no idea what you are talking about.

              In 10 years China will have 52 functional pebble beds each capable of scale up into the gigawatt levels if they needed too.

              Alberta’s coal fleet is the largest in Canada and has a total capacity of 6 287 MW
              That means 6 pebble beds could replace all of Alberta’s coal fired units. Each unit takes 4.5 years to build. Much like the NDP you cannot fathom good stable stationary power infrastructure and would rather use 24% efficient failing to 12% efficiency in 12-15 year, windmills.

  2. Fedup Conservative says:

    Well stated Fescue. It’s working in B.C. and Sweden also . My friends and I are really fed up with these seniors whose minds are so screwed, they can’t believe anything true. The fact is as university professors have pointed out they can’t handle the truth, they aren’t man enough to do so, so they make up their idiotic comments to convince themselves they are a lot smarter than the rest of us.

    You certainly don’t hear our young people calling global warming a hoax, or lies created by scientists to screw the people out of their money, they can see the damage that’s being done, lives being lost, and know we have got to try to do something to stop it. Of course it’s a well known fact that the Carbon Tax actually helps some of our less fortunate people by putting a few dollars in their pockets, but Jason Kenney and his ignorant supporters don’t want to see that. Just like they didn’t want to see our farm hands protected by Bill 6, our Gay students protected by Bill 24, or our rural Albertans provided with additional money to help them try to fight the the increasing crime in their areas. Helping themselves and their rich friends is all they care about.

    • Dennis Bremner says:

      Its working in Sweden? lol Sweden is at 48% renewables of which 38% is NUCLEAR POWER! So you obviously believe 10% Solar and Windmills is a working model and a success story!

      Right well then you must be overjoyed with is report and I quote:
      In 2016, Alberta generated 47.4% of its electricity from coal, 40.3% from natural gas, and 12.3% from renewables. Wind was the largest source of renewable power, generating 6.9% of Alberta’s electricity. Electricity generation in Alberta is dominated by coal and natural gas.
      WOW way better than Sweden! Gee under Conservative rule too??

      Its working in BC? Its working in BC because of their many waterways that are damned and creating power, which flooded Indigenous property everywhere but thats okay, you don’t live there!! Please don’t assume any of these places are where they are because of “the Cuisinarts of the sky” ! Windmills kill on average 60 birds a year per windmill, in windfarms that rises too 90, Alberta has 900 so, 81000 birds from Sparrows to Raptors are being wiped out by your “renewables” add to that the Cuisinarts using rare earth metals and the mines are literally killing areas of Mongolia and Mongolians!
      You don’t live there so it doesn’t exist, right? You young “smart people” think shit just happens, and there is no cost to your fairytale, I quote:
      “For every ton of REEs taken from the ground, there are 340,000 to 420,000 cubic feet of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid released. Additionally, approximately 2,600 cubic feet of acidic waste-water and about a ton of radioactive waste residue are also produced.”

      But thats okay because ” better to be in Mongolia, that way you can claim to be a pretending planethugger in Alberta”

      Treehuggers see the oilsands with stringent environmental laws but not the devastation Rare Earth mining has done in Mongolia where there are ZERO environmental laws…..why? NIMBY , as long as its not in your backyard the pollution dos not exist. Old people see how two faced the young are….stop a pipeline “SUCCESS”, we are saving the planet!!! Until a train carrying crude crashes in the Rockies…..generally young people have no clue what they are talking about….much like you, now that I think about it!
      What you uninformed youth are supporting is renewables that will prove to be totally useless. Windmills today are proving they have lifecycles of 12-15 years and then they are DONE! So in pursuit of implementing renewables at ANY COST you are ensuring a complete replacement program in 12-15 years. Need proof of NDP foolishness?

      I quote: The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

      The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years.
      So in 10 years from now we will need 450 more windmills to maintain the same generation power we generate today assuming we do not build another windmill…”and you Young people think thats smart” lol
      Governments aren’t here to hand out lightbulbs, governments are to make big investment in big energy projects. Name one large energy project the NDP have authored in 3 years, other than to approve MORE windmills? Did you even notice that the NDP used the megawatt production from the new farms as if wind kept the windmills running at 80% production 24/7/365? No one wants to admit the 12-24% efficiency because its embarrassing and does not justify the costs! Inept is what the NDP are when it comes to thinking outside the box! New generation Nuclear that cannot melt down is being built in China and Saudi Arabia. So far the NDP have a ridiculous low budget ineffective Toonie program, it solves no stationary energy issues and is simple minded at best! Alberta does not have waters it can damn, Alberta does not understand Nuclear so the NDP continues to produce bird killers because quite frankly they aren’t smart enough to figure out that stationary power needs big project money but they are too busy hiring for their big government!

      The NDP have proven if you throw a Loonie at the Opioid Crisis you can pretend you are holier than all around you and make the Lethbridge Council look like children who got conned! . If you throw a Toonie at the Global GHG Crisis you can also pretend you are leading edge and convince the totally uninformed that you are! They convinced you with great ease, didn’t they!
      “Conservatives appear to have seen through that sham “!
      As for Global Warming do you know what you are talking about (I think not) because the Globe has not warmed in 15 years (the great pause according to Global warmests no warming during the time GHG’s doubled)! The Globe is not warming appreciably but the Climate is definitely changing. Although to be honest the funding now is so skewed toward alarmists that “the otherside is not only drowned out but now silenced due to lack of funds. So balanced scientific evidence no longer exists. Had equal funding been maintained the conclusion would likely be the same but be more accepted. Because “they chose” (windmill and solar companies) to fund the people with the opinion they wanted to hear, they created the very deniers, they now rebel against! Those that deny Climate Change are denying evidence. Those that deny Global Warming are doing so because the opposition is being silenced. So they ask why, and for good reason. If you do not believe the data and want to challenge it, you get no funding. If you are a peabrained scientist that squawks alarm alarm you are funded till you die. Thats not science thats bias!
      If you are talking about Climate Change then talk about Climate Change not Global Warming because the two are not interchangeable!
      Just an old Guy schooling you with facts!

  3. Resolute says:

    Another example of Ontario socialism shipped in! Perhaps not as well received there anymore? Carbon dioxide emission taxes are taxes. Taxes are punitive. If our CO2 levels are now, or trend to, being damaging then lets see the facts. Not just emotional calls, browbeating and vile attacks on those who trust in scientific method. And if there is true basis to rein in CO2 production let us see a rational plan. At the least that addresses the major emitters in the most sensitive global areas. Canada is neither and if we could totally eliminate our CO2 it would do nothing for global CO2, within anyone’s measurable rounding error. Canada has a net CO2 emission that is approximately zero after accounting for absorption by our forests and greenscape EXCEPT for those periods of massive forest fires. Which are a product of our misguided attempts to eliminate small natural fires and ecoterrorists’ opposition to productively logging our trees. As a Ranger told me, trees can only be harvested two ways – log and mill for lumber OR by fire. One is much safer and more beneficial.

  4. lonestar says:

    We think it smart of the arm chair quarter backs among us – 99% of whom likely can’t discern the difference between weather and climate to reread Mr. Voutsinos editorial and soak in it.

    Mr. Cosmos Voutsinos is one extremely bright person speaking to us here, one of a very large number of scientists with no hand in, or stake in, the windfall jar the carbon tax and other money transfer schemes & grabs is making very very rich those “scientists” whose OPINIONS are so highly spoken of by the armchair quarterbacks.

  5. cosmos says:

    Fescue and Fed up Conservative. My letter is examining the usefulness of carbon pricing schemes. Nothing to do with Earth-warming, believers, left or right leaning politics, etc. Only with what the environment gets – that will define the benefit to our Globe per Dollar spent on mitigation efforts.

    The German CO2 graph provided by you Fescue proves my argument that during the last decade hardly any decrease has been achieved. If you know how to read graphs, you should be able to see that from 2009 to 2016 their emissions have hardly changed. In fact the emissions of 2016 are similar or higher than those of 2009, 2014, 2015. This is you graph so what is your argument? I repeated what was published in Germany by 600 engineers and Der Spiegel: not one gram of CO2 was saved in the last 10 years despite of the $1 Trillion expenditures. I am tempted to accept this as correct because Germany keeps building and operating coal fired power plants and consumes significant amounts of steel coal to fabricate the wind towers. Put this together it negates any benefits that may be provided by the renewables.

    As far as Australia, the PM was replaced within the same Governing Party which announced that it is changing direction with regards to Australia’s Energy Policy and the use of renewables. I don’t know what are you arguing about.

    As far as your example Fedup, If you go to BC you will witness that despite the carbon taxes, and for so many years, they have a plethora of gas-guzzler cars standing in massive traffic jams, and an increasing number and size of power boats that burn between 30 and 80 gallons of fuel per hour. You will also witness the large traffic waiting to cross the borders to USA to buy gas without the BC taxes. Are you sure CO2 taxes works? Please provide the numbers that support your argument.

    With regards to Sweden you must learn that any Scandinavia country backs up the intermittency of their renewables with the large Hydro dams in their integrated grid. In addition, Sweden uses Nuclear power for its base load. But I don’t expect you to understand the meaning of this. It must appear too complex for simple minds.

    Fescue, I don’t want to get personal with you and tell you that I have noticed that you usually answer to a large and diverse number of letters to Editor, which would indicate a educated person in so many fields. However when you quote a graph that disproves your very own argument it indicates at least an ignorant troll.

    • Fescue says:

      With respect to carbon pricing, my point was that you actually did not have a point, except that you did not understand them. They are market mechanisms to correct the price of goods and services that are externalized by economics. The value of our atmosphere for absorbing pollution is no different than the value of our oil under the ground.

      I find it amusing that you read an obviously diminishing graph by worrying about slight fluctuations – you do know that a good percentage of emissions is related to weather. Well, Cosmos, some years are colder and some are warmer. As such, some years will have higher demand for energy than others. Your argument reminds me when people were claiming that global warming had ceased after 1997, because it happened to be a particularly hot year followed by a few cooler ones – since then we have had record year after record year of hot weather, as predicted by climate models. One of the main problems in your argumentation is that you confound the discussion of emissions/global warming with costs. If you wish to discuss costs, you must include the costs avoided by implementing greener technologies, not just the cost of the technologies.

      As for Australia, you said: “Australia just fired their prime minister on the basis of his infatuation with renewables that have destroyed the electricity industry in that country.” This is absurd.

    • Dennis Bremner says:

      Well said Cosmos thank you

  6. lonestar says:

    Perhaps better time spent, checking the gates Mr. Voutsinos.

    Dialing up the the archives we find the person Fescue was/is the person (not the only one) who thought containing less than 10% of our residential waste, letting the other 90% + pollute as they always have no questions asked, no immediate plan to alter the behaviour either, will solve Lethbridge’s landfill/waste steam issues.

    We suggest arguing with such a person is futile, their opinions formed and education complete a long long time ago.

    • Fescue says:

      I’m surprised, lonestar, that you haven’t tried the old dodge of ‘well, Lethbridge produces less than 0.1% of the waste in Canada, so why bother?’

      Perhaps if you fellows were actually ever ‘for’ something (other than free-riding on the environment), you would find you wouldn’t have to work so hard to conceal the facts in a bunch of convoluted percentages.

      • lonestar says:

        Thanks for your input Fescue. We’re not surprised one bit since your history proves unquestionably your “old dodge” of convoluting percentages, figures and common sense bests anyone on this forum, except maybe biff – hey where’s the resident expert on everything – you two one and the same?. Bless you both just the same.

        • Fescue says:

          I like biff’s interesting and anarchic (in the good sense) viewpoints. A fresh voice compared to the old curmudeons cherry picking facts so as to be opposed to everything. Thanks for putting me in the same club.

    • Tris Pargeter says:

      Well you’re a religious believer so you’re not really one to talk about open-mindedness are you?
      Doctrines aren’t exactly about critical thinking now are they?
      YOUR “education” goes back much further, speaking of “a long long time ago.”
      I guess that’s one of the appeals of signing on to the delusion that is religion–it gives you the proverbial leg up in every argument, on every issue. All you have to do is say “god bless” and you automatically attain the majesty of omniscience like God, who is somehow also MALE! What a coincidence! A happy one for all men, not so much for women mind you.
      It’s almost like it’s YOU men yourselves are the gods, by proxy….

  7. Fedup Conservative says:

    It’s the same old problem let’s all stick our heads in the sand and let our children and grandchildren have to deal with it. It’s hilarious how Ralph Klein can help his rich friends take thousands of dollars out of their pockets and he’s a hero for doing it. Jason Kenney is promising to carry on where Klein left off screwing them out of their money and they tell us they can’t wait to elect him. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. I’m betting the fees that were added to their power and gas bills by their hero Klein, has cost them an extra $18,000. to $20,000. but they wouldn’t know how to do the math. A man told me a few months ago that with the property he owns the fees have cost him an extra $42,000. Then there was the MLA from the Lougheed era who told me to think about what these fees have done to our health care and education costs.

    I wonder why a retired Exxon oil executive from Texas, who had worked in Calgary for Imperial Oil told me that he thought Albertans were the dumbest people on the planet for letting Ralph Klein give away our oil like he was doing. Don’t you people realize it’s non-renewable he sated. He went on to say where else in the modern world would the people be so stupid they would let their government take three hospitals away from them driving out thousands of doctors and nurse, putting people’s lives at risk, then reward them with a higher majority in the next election for doing so. My wife and I couldn’t get out of Calgary soon enough, we didn’t fit in, we weren’t dumb enough. I’ve told that story to several oilmen over the years and they have stated that every American oilman they ever worked with in Alberta felt the same way. One guy told me that one of the Americans told him that they had to get this oil out of Alberta as fast as they can before the people wake up and realize that we are stealing their wealth. Well it happened we lost about $400. billion as oilmen, lawyers, accountants, bankers and former MLAs will tell you. Can you boys prove we didn’t and can you give us an intelligent answer as to what we should be doing about our pollution, other than nothing. Ignoring what we are told, like you do, isn’t going to work.
    I know young Albertans would like to hear your answers, they know something has to be done. We created the mess, so how are we going to fix it?

    • Dennis Bremner says:

      I find it rather amazing that you seem to have lived in Alberta but do not understand Alberta. What part of “we produce energy and derivatives for Canada and the US, that you do not understand”? So, we are the largest emitter because we feed the Canadian Economy as well as help the poor Quebecers who prefer to work a half day and receive a $10billion subsidy to help them live like people who work a fullday!

      So what exactly do you want Alberta to do, would you like us to cease producing oil, drop GHGs by .08% and buy more oil from countries like Saudii Arabia? It truly amazes me how stupid, Canadian Treehuggers are. Although the USA has their moron group too, look at DAPL , oppose a pipeline and leave so much garbage behind the local Indian band had to hire over 575 triaxels to haul away, plastic tents, plastic bags, etc etc, yet “ahuck golly gee I’ze an environmentalist”!

      Because I consider you one of those nutbar environmentalists with NO plan other then to complain complain complain here is what I know about you.
      -You live in the past
      -You have no burlap in your closet
      -you do not own seaweed sandals
      -you own numerous products that have Rare Earth metals inthem
      -you drive a car or truck
      -you heat your home
      -you air condition your home
      -you bitch and complain that others do the same

      You are a certified nutbar!

    • biff says:

      perfectly stated, fedup. as for db, below and all over: you are one stuck in the muck dude. sure wish i could take all the world’s oil and plastic and tires and goo and poisons related to it, and send you and your ilk off with it all. bathe in it, eat it, drink it, and glorify it all you wish, only not here…anymore.

  8. biff says:

    surely it is premature to move away from our beloved fossil fuels. the planet is doing just fine with the path we have been stuck on. god bless our pipelines, and coal, and tar, and poisoned land, water, and air, and the degradation of pretty much all that lives. bless the deformed fish and reptiles; bless the smokey skies that saves us from having to camp to get a good lungful of clean air; bless the water that now has added chemicals even more beneficial than fluoride; bless ploughing over of the stupid trees in the northwest that get in the way of our love of tar and plastic and “rubber”; bless the plastics that smother our landscapes and waters with their healthy blessings; bless the already thousands of miles of pipelines that leak oh so consistently and as mercilessly, and the fracking that injects useful chemicals into the soils and water tables that save us from having to buy vitamins….
    you pro-fossil fuel fools just do not get it. too thick to see the ruination and too stuck on a false and corrupt economy. carbon tax may not be the best answer – it is time we bite the bullet for a bit and move to quality and sustainable clean energy solutions. we may need to go hybrid to complete such a step, but that which reduces fossil fuel use is the good direction. btw: the scam that are the windmills – which kill our flying friends and create a toxic environment – are not part of an effective answer. nor is nuclear, which is trading one toxicity for another.

    • Dennis Bremner says:

      Actually i am not stuck on fossil fuels. As soon as a technology demonstrates reasonable efficiency has reasonable maintenance cycles and does not rely on fair weather or wind, I will support it. You Libs just get attracted to any device no matter how inefficient using the scare tactic of “before its too late”
      You are more than willing to jump into CRAP renewables whole hog but like Fescue, can’t seem to force the leap to excellent examples of new innovative stationary power.
      You ignore the statistical data that shows windmills and batteries fail at even resembling a moderate efficiency rate, why? Total unadulterated panic, thats why, so you keep running around with the NDP doing the sky is falling thing and the grown ups will try to steer Canada into stable high efficiency low maintence stationary power

      • Fescue says:

        To replace the energy from the burning of fossil fuels, the world needs roughly:
        6,000,000 MW
        Fourth generation nuclear currently producing:
        0 MW
        Is this really a solution, or is it another technology-will-save-us fantasy? If the technology is indeed viable, how long will it take to build and install tens of thousands of units (though we hear that China is planning 54 over the next 10 years)?

        A fire breaks out in a theatre and the people begin to move to the exits. Fearing a panic, a quick witted patron moves to the piano on the stage and begins to play. The theatre goers, soothed to believe that everything is fine by the confident piano player, begin to move back to their seats – where they burn to death.

  9. Seth Anthony says:

    I’m not stuck on fossil fuels either, but the simple fact of the matter is solar and wind are not even close to being viable.

    Global oil demand is increasing, and we need it to survive. Canada sits on a goldmine of oil, but we can’t get it to the coast, and have to sell it to the US at a huge discount. Furthermore, we sit on one the largest oil deposits in the world, but instead, we buy our oil from countries that don’t give a shit about human rights, the environment, and spew out way more c02 than if we just used our own instead of buying it from them. It’s lunacy.

    Then the environuts say no to pipelines, but are all good with the much more dangerous rail and truck transport methods. Never mind the massive mining in BC. They’re clueless hypocrites that are easily bent over by propaganda.

    Now here we are. A country that no one wants to invest in. Our debt is increasing at an alarming rate, and our economy is tanking. All the while we sit on an unused gold mine.

  10. Fedup Conservative says:

    Well said Seth, and we have these ignorant Albertans who let Ralph Klein, Ed Stelmach, and Alison Redford screw us out of around $400 billion in royalties and tax breaks and they want to let Jason Kenney do it again. Those of us got called traitors, communists, leftists, left-wing nuts or closet liberals by these ignorant fools for trying to stop it. If the Klein and Stelmach governments bothered to listen to Peter Lougheed we would have had our pollution under control, been refining our own bitumen, and selling the gasoline to the U.S. at a fair price making this province extremely rich. The Irving family in New Brunswick has been doing it for years. They built the largestt refinery in Canada, as those of us who have seen it know. A friend worked there years ago.

    Pollution can be controlled as we know the refineries in East Edmonton are not a problem for the people of Sherwood Park and the Imperial oil one in Calgary isn’t either. But the Fort MacMurray ones are from what I’ve been told and no one seems to want to do anything about it. But these seniors are the same ones who believed that closing hospitals, closing hospital beds, and cutting 5,000 nursing positions would make our health care system a lot better, and deregulation would make their power bills a lot cheaper. They also believed the Klein lie that we have had to send billions to Ottawa and Quebec in the form of equalization payments when we haven’t paid a penny.

    If we hadn’t given away our wealth we wouldn’t be having these conversations as the professionals will tell you. You don’t hear Norway and Alaska crying about how hard done by they are do you?

    • Seth Anthony says:

      Fedup Conservative,

      I’m simply a Fed Up Albertan. More specifically, fed up of being bent over by the east, and fed up with ignorant, and hypocritical environmentalists. Don’t get me wrong though, I was into “green living” long before this whole environmental movement even took hold.

      I’m fed up that we get poorer by the day because a few environuts don’t want us to sell our oil. These people seem to think that we can change to so called “green energy” overnight. They are clueless to the fact that trying to stop our oil production, only increases our oil dependency on countries with appalling human rights violations, and an appalling lack of environmental concerns. Thing is, these environmentalist do-gooders, are not only making the environment even more polluted, but they also send us down further into the road of poverty and despair. They will be our undoing.

  11. biff says:

    solar is a most useful method of reducing carbon fuel fallout, even while we do not quite have it nearly perfected. nuclear is just plain stupid – the fallout from disasters and from dumping its virtually forever toxins is just another dumb and ignorant folly. until a clean, efficient and sustainable energy source is unveiled, we need to learn to reduce our use. we need to heat our homes, but we do not need near as much energy overall as we are led to believe.
    so much of our use is for toys and nonessential endeavours. this is all encouraged by our false economy – that we need to make and buy stuff because our revered god: the capital economy – can grow ever larger and more powerful. most of what we do, and the vast majority of all decision making is around money – an invention, not a reality. and this narrow and stuck approach is ruining the planet, the very thing that we require in order to survive.
    you trumpet for more pipelines, disregarding not only their dirty history, but their present attack on our future sustainability. and you defend it simply in the name of the false economy. and for what? some temporary jobs, a handful of “permanent” jobs, and all while the usual formula plays out: workers get a couple bucks, the well placed get banks full.
    environuts? hardly. our present issues are born of greed undermining sustainability, and a stupid adherence to an economic approach that is proving ruinous. we are stuck on oil because it lines pockets, and because it is a pillar upon which our false economy is built. consequently, we are further conditioned to always want more…which means buying/using more…which means polluting and destroying more.
    i thank the stupid,and selfish, and crazy, and moronic environuts for stepping out of their comfort in order to save the planet, even if it annoys the alberta dinosaur.

  12. cosmos says:

    Here are some factual bullets. I hope you are including them into perspective for your arguments:

    * Canada is one of six countries in the world that absorbs more CO2 that it emits. Our Borealis forests , agricultural lands and water-sheds absorb almost 10 % of the world’s annual emissions of CO2. On the other hand all of Canada contributes only 1.6 % of the annual world emissions .

    * Technically we should send invoices to the UN for all the service that we provide. Instead we try to destroy our economy so that our politicians can posture as global benefactors.

    * The Oil Sands contribute 30% or Canada’s, or 0.5% of the world’s annual emissions. For comparison China last year contributed more than 40% of the worlds annual emissions. This increases by 2 to 3 % each year.

    * According to a University of Stockholm Professor, If all countries meet their Paris commitments the world’s temperature will decrease by 0.2 degrees C by the year 2100 from today.

    .BC removes carbon sinks – and hence increase the atmospheric CO2 – by tree cutting, almost at the same rate as the oil sands emissions. Remember a large tree absorbs more CO2 than a seedling. It takes 40 to 60 years to grow to is original size. Meanwhile they keep cutting.

    *the TM pipeline requires 1 tanker/day as it is now. If the pipeline is built it will require X3 as many.. Compare this to 200 freighters that load/unload in Vancouver monthly. Compare this to 2 bulk carriers loading coal in BC daily and now BC imports coal from the USA and builds a new coal harbour in Texada Island to export US coal.

    *Coal emits 40% more CO2 than hydrocarbons (diesel and gas). The consumers emit the CO2, not the producers. If Canada stops exports they will buy what they need from elsewhere

    *Consider the increasing number of some 20 cruise liners that ply the BC coast to Alaska. Then add the thousands of power boats in BC coast. One 40 ft power boat consumes 30 gallons/hour. A 50 ft. consumes 50 gallons….etc. The number and size of boats keeps increasing in the West coast.

    *Our current government fights CO2 increases by attacking our electricity market. The total electricity production contributes 17% of Alberta’s annual emissions. Even if they manage to reduce it by 30% as they say they will save 5.5% of our current emissions. But Alberta will not achieve a 30% reduction with 5,000 new wind turbines. OPSS they forgot that wind turbines deliver only 1/3 of their nametag capacity and at totally unpredictable times. So any potential savings could be less than 1% of our foot print

    It is impossible to achieve even the 1% reduction with renewables because unpredictable renewables require Gas turbines to run idle without producing power in order to keep them synchronized to 60Hz grid system so they can make up any sudden renewable drop in production. So, how much CO2 is saved from the use of renewables when we need to run the gas turbines 70% of the time (when the renewables don’t work), and 30% of time when they work.

    I will continue this list some other time but for now I ask you to consider all these pertinent points and put them into perspective when you make your so called green argument.

  13. Seth Anthony says:

    Thanks for that cosmos.

    Biff, Dennis is right. You are unfortunately, a nutbar.

  14. lonestar says:

    Sorry folks we had to hire extra security to handle the people who came to listen and cheer -lol!

    Thank You Thank You Thank You to the person with the credentials to bring the house down using facts based on reality and science to the discussion – Mr. Voutsinos – that should end it!.

  15. biff says:

    not sure how thick one must be to defend sticking to the path we have been on, but it goes as a miracle you will have learned to tie your shoes…or, bless velcro? the planet becomes uglier and more toxic and less habitable by the decade. it is degraded at pretty much an exponential rate now. much of this is thanks to fossil fuel use; moreover, much of our use is wasteful. were you alive 400 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to accept that the planet is not flat.
    fes, a great reminder! notwithstanding the fine list of stats provided by cosmos, but which do not dispel the reality of our present stupid and destructive approaches to living, i feel i am more reminded of dumb and dumber.

  16. Dennis Bremner says:

    I thank Cosmos again. I know his comments are not designed to be politically based. But, mine are so I take this para and ask all the treehugging nutbars why you will not find a Liberal or Albertan NDP ever mention this, simple answer…it ruins the dogwhistle. I quote:

    * Canada is one of six countries in the world that absorbs more CO2 that it emits. Our Borealis forests , agricultural lands and water-sheds absorb almost 10 % of the world’s annual emissions of CO2. On the other hand all of Canada contributes only 1.6 % of the annual world emissions .

    This is why I asked why you never hear Notley or “I can fix it with a Loonie and a low flow shower head “Phillips” ever mention these statistics? Simple, when you have a dogwhistle that appeals to what is marketed as a crisis you get to dump the previous crisis which was to not leave debt for our children. So you blow the dogwhistle that supports your agenda. That grabs the nutbars of the provinces attention, you can motivate them to side with the nutbars that just don’t like Oil and believe we could drop its use today (hence nutbars).

    So you get people like biff and Fescue proposing our path is better using outdated ineffective, nonfunctional and useless technology, when they know that the only way to really achieve fossil fuel independence is to support Fission, Fusion, New Gen Nuclear or other mass electrical projects. Of those, Power Generation Commercially, is one year away using New Gen Nuclear. So if you “really love the planet and your caring actually went beyond symbolic, we would be pumping money into thse projects at full speed.

    Not even Nutbars like biff believe we can reach energy independence in Alberta with windmills and Solar. The nutbars claim, its better then doing nothing……ahh no its not, not when you know the “better than” has a life cycle of 12-15 years and an efficiency that falls to 12%! The NDP know this as well but, its a vehicle that allows their dollar spending “big gov, big unions” development to move unimpeded. Spend a $1.20 on windmills, spend 20c on Opioid and open the vault for the real agenda! If you question their stupidity , then you must be a planet hating racist!

    If this entire farce was not a lie and a con, I would not be grilling the NDP as badly, if this was the Conservative agenda I would be grilling them as well. The point is and has always been stop spending OUR money on efficiencies of 24% or less and start acting like a grown up government that investigates solid technology and sets up an Academic Network that will support the new gen Nuclear. That would be forward thinking and something worthy of Provincial Gov spending because it would show you actually had a clue what you are doing. As a sidebar, the Quebec Government has set up a New Gen Nuclear program and is expanding it now ” with Alberta Money”! (how ironic!) The NDP present program is a distraction only, it allows you to pretend to fight climate change (also the opioid crisis ) with Toonies and Loonies and crap on people that question your stupidity. Mind you, all you are doing is catering to Mr. Dressup in Ottawa, who prefers to do a drama teacher crying apology for 200 year old history and pass out money like jujubes, then actually support his own interest in climate change! Think about this for one moment, what exactly has Mr Dressup actually done to address his climate change crisis other than threaten a Federal Carbon Tax? Name one thing? PS-Buying a pipeline does not count! Mind you, you can vote Mr Dressup out using another terribly important crisis of his “first past the post” voting system! I digress! So why should anyone expect the NDP to actually “think independently ” for Alberta!
    That does not mean Albertans “prefer” the Conservatives, it just means that Albertans have grown politically and can smell a political con job quicker. They learned slowly from the Conservative multi-year conjob but have now realized its best to throw the bums out ASAP, then allow another multi-year conjob to take a foothold ! An Albertan Liberal is an oxymoron, so you can be guaranteed that we will flip NDP/UCP for many years to come. Why? the UCP once entrenched, will attempt their own con, because old habits are hard to break! Kenney is not the savior, he is just the next item in the political vending machine. How long he stays depends whether his backers see another opportunity for a con and he takes the bait. If he does, the next item in the political vending machine is NDP !
    The NDP think were still the same dumb Albertans that have not learned!
    Do you know what that gets Mr Dressup and the Provincial NDP in 2019? A different job!
    The most important part of this article which has been bookmarked in my arsenal to combat nutbars is this para ;

    “Recently, Canada’s federal and provincial auditors general announced a joint audit of the country’s carbon emissions. But what credible audit would examine only half a balance sheet? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t audit our absorption capacity, too. How much CO2 did our forests and land absorb? Do some trees and topographies perform better than others? In short, what is Canada’s carbon balance?”


    The reason politicians will not publish numbers that indicate we absorb more then we generate in CO2 is strictly their pursuit in dogwhistle development and grooming! for “political agenda” purposes only. Soon as it appeared that this would get more coverage then the agenda seekers wanted they changed the term from CO2 to GHG’s and started to insist its more then CO2! Yet it was CO2 that got us where we are today, so when cornered change the terms…Global Warming became Climate Change because , well everyone can see the Climate is Changing and well thats Global Warming right? C02 bad..unless we don’t as a country actually contribute in which case I mean GHGs
    A total marketing con that is designed to misdirect if questioned! Their response! you are questioning Global Warming!!! ….duh no I am not I am questioning your Alberta politically motivated agenda driven, and Canada math! dummy!!

  17. Seth Anthony says:

    Fescue, you said:

    “”As for the gamesmanship around percentages, the only rational way to measure emissions is per capita – all of these emissions are ultimately related to our consumption of goods and our comfort. Arbitrarily drawing a line around a population and saying this is our and this is theirs is absurd””.

    A couple of things come to mind with that.

    1) RE: Per capita. The per capita argument is seriously flawed as it doesn’t take into account demographics and wealth. For example, someone living in Canada needs heat and lighting on a level that far exceeds someone living in California. In regards to wealth, someone living on the plains of Africa would emit just as much as a first world resident IF they had the means to purchase electricity to run appliances, electronics, etc.

    2) Not drawing a line around a population and land ownership would simply lead to chaos and destruction. I do however see what you’re getting at here, and I wish it could be made true. Problem is, the human race is still too archaic, narrow minded, emotional, and ego centered to succeed in such a utopia.

    Above and beyond that, fossil fuel bashers piss me off due to their hypocrisy and ungratefulness. Without fossil fuels, we would we be living in a human hell right now.

    No one in their right mind disagrees that we need to utilize a better energy source. Unfortunately, that better energy source at the very least would require a significant breakthrough in energy storage. I have been anxiously awaiting such technology for the last 30 years.

    To seek a better energy source is a noble cause. To bash our current energy source and all that it has given us, then state that we need to immediately stop using fossil fuels (suicide), is the epitome of ignorance.

    • Fescue says:

      Thank you for the meaningful comments, Seth Anthony. I think you have your finger on the two main conundrums.

      It is a good point that we should be more grateful for fossil fuels – human civilization and our comfortable standard of living is underwritten by them. Unfortunately, what has been our greatest asset may also be our undoing, as earth systems are destabilized by our pollution – in the soil, water and air. And worse, we use a gargantuan amount of fossil fuels with no alternatives that can be ramped up in meaningful timelines. What to do?

      Your point about organizing individual behaviours outside of the state is also well taken. The game of stating that Canada emits only 1.6% of the greenhouse gases and should get a carbon credit for the Boreal forests is fine, if one were willing to accept only 1.6% of the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb pollution and were willing to accept a carbon debit for our melting permafrost, our vast agriculture (which is a very significant emitter), and even our coastal waters once they become too acidic to continue to absorb carbon dioxide. The bottom line is that the earth system was in homeostasis, more or less, before the fossil age with emissions and carbon sequestration in a balance. Adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere and massive changes in land use are the sources of the problem – but also the foundation of civilization. This is where Cosmos’ point about the weakness of the Paris Accord becomes prescient – if we continue to act like nation-states blaming each other, we are in trouble. How can we blame China for emissions when we buy all of their goods? Are we not all complicit in a global economy?

      The bottom line for me is that we require human innovation more than ever – trial and error with objective analysis to see if something helps us manage climate change. People like Cosmos and Dennis, and the modern theo-neo-conservative movement, represent to me a reactionary assault on innovation. Really, what’s wrong with trying carbon caps, levies, basic income, and a whole host of other experiments to see if they work or can be adjusted to work. Being against trying anything because something might go wrong is not going to be a helpful perspective going forward.

      • Dennis Bremner says:

        Fescue said: People like Cosmos and Dennis, and the modern theo-neo-conservative movement, represent to me a reactionary assault on innovation. Really, what’s wrong with trying carbon caps, levies, basic income, and a whole host of other experiments to see if they work or can be adjusted to work. Being against trying anything because something might go wrong is not going to be a helpful perspective going forward.

        Don’t try to tie me to a party, as for innovation the efficiency of windmills and solar is not limited by technology, they are limited by wind and sun availability. It does not take a genius to realize that our greatest residential consumption is after the sun goes down and that’s when the wind dies. So the innovation has to be in storage which has nothing to do with Solar or windmills. However, that initself is creating environmental issues for graphite and lithium. Funding windmills or solar does not automatically create funding for storage, so your logic is flawed.

        Much like biff, when you or any other hugger starts losing the argument you revert to insisting we are anti-innovators or “non” out of the box thinkers! You raise the issue to a Global dynamic to insist we at a provincial level should feel ashamed of our less than 1% contribution, which is really 0% because we are part of the world community! Thats a total treehugger argument who never analyzes the problem and then says “we are it”. The bottom line is you have to contribute to GHGs to be able to see a reduction. The only way you can measure “a reduction” is to set your own measurement up that does not include the otherside of the balance sheet. Which means you can easily fabricate whatever you like. ie “we NDP reduced carbon emmissions by X% !! Really ? What measure did you use…..a made in NDP land election measure!

        We don’t contribute to GHGs or CO2 using a full flow sheet so all this is just a feel good for Mr Dressup and anyone else that signs up for this dogwhistle! When you no longer can use numbers to make Albertans feel guilty then its the human race and we should pay to correct the human race problem…ie we buy from China ergo Canadians should pay for being that dastardly….huggers never run out of deferred, an disassociated guilt logic as to why Albertan’s should be subservient to their twisted theories!
        All we want is facts then we will react to the facts, we are really not interested in NDP/Canadian 1/2 facts to further a political agenda. Its like I have mentioned before, huggers created Global Warming Deniers by depriving subjective scientists of funding. I do not deny their conclusions may have been the same as the Global Warming Scientists, but you cut the funding from those that questioned it. That created the denier! Now you massage the numbers associated with GHG contributions to support an unsupportable position. Then you accuse those that catch you in the lie of being anti innovation or a denier. You have no end of trickery and lies and somehow you have managed to get Canadian Governments and Provinces to work with the half balance sheet that supports your agenda, well done!

        In the meantime there is a need to contribute to alternative energy, Albertans do not deny that. What they want is a responsible government to come up with a SUSTAINABLE large energy solution. Windmills and solar are not that sustainable solution, its a knee jerk feel good solution, to a faked set of numbers within Alberta, to create a NDP agenda and create a real diversion from real responsible Government planning! The planet maybe in crisis, Alberta/Canada is not! To state otherwise is simple fakery!

  18. Seth Anthony says:

    Good point on new generation nuclear Dennis. I didn’t mentioned that viable option in previous posts, as I’m new to this group, and still holding back on my more controversial thoughts.

    Nuclear energy is a viable energy source that will unlikely go mainstream. Reason being, the past and present misguided hysteria over the few accidents that occurred in the early stages of the technology. If it wasn’t for that ignorance, then by now we would be free of fossil fuels and utilizing safe and clean nuclear alternatives.

    • Good point re nuclear, Seth. Once the current infatuation with renewables is over, and the eventual depletion of fossil fuels is recognized agin, the vast energy source available from nuclear will be deployed to service the planet. Why? It works.

  19. biff says:

    despite an intelligent entry by fes, db shouts him down with the immature insults. you earn a pacifier. seth, too.
    we seem to agree that windmills – at least the type being used now – are a waste. solar, however, while not perfect nor perfected, can still help us to reduce the amount of fossils fuels we burn. we cannot depend on it wholly, but it is nonetheless helpful…unless do you not agree that that fossil fuel use is presently a problem. as for nuclear… a few errors in the early days but now they are good to go? haha! rich! bury the waste on this planet – or send it into space? either way, a nice toxic gift of sludge that will still pose a significant danger for “only” several centuries (as opposed the thousands of years from present reactors) to come. the planet needs to be cleansed, not further poisoned. and are we sure these new facilities will be disaster proof, as well? flood proof; earthquake proof; fire proof; tornado proof; hurricane proof; bomb proof…. the lessons of chernobyl and fukushima and three mile island easily forgotten. even the mining alone for reactors is a too nasty attack on the health of the planet.
    oh, and nothing more empowering and flattering than being called a nutbar by fools. thanks for the honour 🙂

  20. Dennis Bremner says:

    Again, you should attempt to read about the new nuclear;
    – they cannot runnaway
    -they cannot meltdown
    -they use spent fuel that we now store
    -they were built as a result of Fukishima and Chernobyl

    • Fescue says:

      Don’t be fooled by socialists like Dennis Bremner … he wants the taxpayer to subsidize this non-economic pipe dream: first research, then governments underwriting the risks, and now to subsidize the costs of production. ‘New Nuclear’, just like ‘Clean Coal’


      • Dennis Bremner says:

        Fescue said: Don’t be fooled by socialists like Dennis Bremner … he wants the taxpayer to subsidize this non-economic pipe dream: first research, then governments underwriting the risks, and now to subsidize the costs of production. ‘New Nuclear’, just like ‘Clean Coal’

        I am impressed Fescue, you dug up a 10 year old article on old generation Nuclear so you can pretend to the readership that you know something about the New Generation Nukes. Well done…no one will see through this guise of stupidity, you are amazingly brilliant, no one will notice I am sure…good on you! Perhaps you might want to sprinkle your post with how steam locomotives are also “not the way to go”? Just an idea?

        Where oh where can we hide this 2018 article? bloody internet they update everything eh Fescue? bastads! https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/

        Can you see if you can get this deleted from the Internet Fescue?
        I quote: A recent study from the nonprofit Energy Innovation Reform Project estimated that the latest batch of nuclear startups could deliver electricity somewhere between $36 and $90 a megawatt hour. That’s competitive with any power plant that runs on natural gas (which runs between $42 to $78), and would provide a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

        It gets worse, they will be able to make hydrogen cheaper by using molten salt reactors, gads were surrounded by Socialists, Commies right Fescue ? The Gall of them…cheap hydrogen for hydrogen cars what are they doing!!!Trying to put 12% efficient bird killing whirleygigs out of business….the commie bastads!!
        This is outrageous can’t we all get any Nuke articles and links to automatically go to Fescue’s 10 year old article, please, otherwise we will be surrounded with commies disguised as Socialists! You young people are so much smarter than I, so fix that internet thingy please!! Meanwhile the Alberta NDP are hurriedly having solar powered nightlights made, to give out at there next “We are saving the planet, one low flow showerhead at a time- rally ” Followed by the “It only takes a Toonie and no REAL thought to save the planet- we’re proof, rally” !!

        Fescue…we are surrounded by Socialist? New Brunswick? https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/understanding-the-super-safety-of-moltex-nuclear-plant-which-will-be-built-in-canada.html

        But.. a loonie for an opioid crisis = a toonie for a low flow showerhead…ask Minister Phillips she has all the answers when it comes to being righteously offended and uninforned, but no answers when it comes to solutions!

        • Fescue says:

          The Wired article is intersting – I’ll make an effort to read the report.

          The reason I chose the article I did is because it is thoroughly researched and presented – they have more recent research that supports the main argument – that is new nuclear is expensive, and it is highly subsidized.

          This Guardian article (less than a year old) is interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/22/new-nuclear-power-cannot-rival-windfarms-price-energy-boss-innogy

          And more to the point: https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power

          Wheatking5 says “Think about it; how big a footprint do we need to replace all our fossil fuels? Is this even rational?” which is a good question. Given that fossil fuels are finite (even China’s coal production is said to have recently peaked), and given the impacts of a warming global climate and ocean acidification, we should all hope that it is rational. Maybe nuclear will be a stopgap, as Seth Anthony suggests, I don’t know. Getting back to the gist of Cosmos’ whinging, I do know that resisting every effort from carbon caps or levies to renewable energy without offering realizable alternatives is useless. It is only in the trying that we will get through this.

          • Dennis Bremner says:

            Hate to say it Fescue but its time to signoff and change your alias because you are proving you have no talent for research …NONE! Your two articles of interest. One is authored by a windmill energy consortium headed up by innogy.
            Your second article is not authored and is summarized only as far as 2011

            So do everyone a favour, sign off as Fescue and come back as..perhaps…… “I can’t do research”… we won’t be able to guess its you!

            Lastly you say “Its only through trying we will get through this”

            well golly shucks and gee, why not “try” to secure land permits enviro studies etc for future MSR sites, then in 3 years we will be ready to build our own…..but its better the NDP doesn’t start now they will just f@$k it up

            Innogy is a subsiduary of failed old school 1st/2nd Gen German Nuclear program RWE. RWE has never done any research or shown interest in 4th Gen, in fact they died because they were stuck in old school nuke! They were totally unprepared when Merkle killed Nuke in Germany!
            RWE has sold off all its assets and literally went bankrupt ( except a clever asset transfer to Innogy which saved pay checks for their managers and owners. They spun off Innogy who now produce renewables and uses windmills to support their (RWE) old grid. Innogy’s grid only survives because of all their agreements with the windmill companies who feed their grid !!Try doing real research before posting please!

            • Fescue says:

              You’re hilarious, db. I give you a Guardian article and a Union of Concerned Scientists after you give me a Wired Magazine article and then you decry my research abilities? And, once again, where is one to find definitive numbers when there are no 4th generation plants online where the costs will become clear. Until then, it is the speculation of experts, most of whom suggest that this energy will not be competitive to wind and solar, but may have some benefits for base load nonetheless.

              Really, db, if your scientific literacy were even half as impressive as your verbosity, you would be actually interesting. As it stands, however …

  21. Seth Anthony says:

    I don’t think nuclear options should be outright dismissed. It may very well end up being a “forced” temporary solution until we get a viable alternative.

  22. wheatking5 says:

    The next time any of you are on Hwy 1 past Brooks, take a look at the solar farm there. That used to be productive irrigated farm land. Now it is covered in panels. Think about it; how big a footprint do we need to replace all our fossil fuels? Is this even rational?

    • phlushie says:

      And the other problem that comes before us is the reduction of food production to feed our increasing population. Maybe the increasing human population is the underlying problem for this climate change and GHG and carbonization as the human is basically carbon based. And we will not understand this until we are standing shoulder to shoulder on every square foot of this earth. We are already to the point that many countries can not grow enough food to sustain their population. Why do you think we have these mass migrations. They are going to increase as time passes and population grows to become unsustainable.

      • Dennis Bremner says:

        Totally agree phlushie. Catastrophic stupidity reins supreme in the biofuel industry that bought up corn plantations removing it from the food source inventory! But huggers searching for anything but oil who live off of subsidies use no common sense, its all about the money

  23. lonestar says:

    phuslie gets our vote to, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

    Although you didn’t answer the question “Who benefits from carbon pricing” you identified exactly the heart of the problem – unsustainable population growth.

    Many folks have never heard of a special day of note on this planet we wish wasnot there at all – that day is Earth Overshoot Day, the day that humans on this earth have consumed more of nature than nature replenishes.

    It is no joke and it is serious, and it is not Canada’s problem it is not a problem of
    Lethbridge. this is a problem in a country like Tanzania, with a population inhabiting a land area nearly ten time smaller than Canada with a population 1 1/2 times that of Canada.

    That’s the African country in the news recently where the leader decreed that women, already producing near 5 children each ,can now keep the assembly line active producing as many as they wish as the magician leader has figured out not only how to feed the existing starving masses but the ones he encourages in the future.

    Planet earth is in big trouble on many fronts – we pray daily.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.