[PublicAnimalNo9]

eureka eureka:

peck420 peck420:

Every province across Canada has projects planned. If we go by what is planned, and assume that all will reach their goals (unlikely) Alberta and Ontario will breakdown as follows:

Based on both provinces 2015 plans...you would almost think they planned together or with the same agency...oh, the did. (Wind Vision 2025, CanWEA)

2015 MW/Person Wind Capacity (Populations are reference lines from StatsCan)
AB: 0.00177MW/Person (7013MW / 3,969,845 People)
ON: 0.00032MW/Person (4479.2MW / 14,027,550 People)

I don't know just how your figures are derived but Ontario at the end of 2012 had slightly more than double the installed capacity of Alberta Alberta has approximately 450 MW approved or under construction; Ontario 1250. Five years ago, Alberta led.

Why do you insist on lying? EVERY source I've checked shows Alberta with 800-900MW installed capacity. Once again, it's necessary to point out that Alberta has 3/4 the wind generation capacity as Ontario currently has, while only having 1/3 of the population.
Half of Ontario's wind capacity is in a 100km by 20km swath south of the 401 between Essex and the eastern border of Kent county. All of that land is PRIME farm land.
And all those turbines are providing power to less than 200,000 homes. By comparison, once Units 1&2 at Bruce A are re-fired(if they already haven't been), the 2300 acre Bruce NGS will be providing power to 4 million homes.
The cool part is, right now as I write this, it's so fucking windy they have to shut the wind turbines down, but we still get to pay them not to produce. How fucking retarded a power supply is it when it has to be shut down due to wind? No wind, they're useless. Too much wind, they're useless.
IN the meantime, if it wasn't for Ontario's nuclear energy, we'd be cranking out the MW with coal and gas right now.

You keep harping on about the Germans and what they're doing but I guess yer not aware that they are currently building and tendering bids to build more coal and gas fired plants, to the tune of at least 10,000MW. All of them to be on-line anywhere from 2013-1015. There's a reason why but I'll let you figure it out, however I doubt you'll bother to challenge your ideological handicap.
You keep yapping about they're world leaders in renewable energy and maybe they are. What they are NOT is world leaders in GHG emission free energy.
IN the link you've posted more than once showing Canada's ranking in GHG emissions, you might notice that Germany is above us and produces about twice as much as Canada.
Canada is second in the world when it comes to hydro-electric power with 59% of Canada's total generation coming from such. When it comes to overall emission free energy, Canada is at about 75%. That is nothing to be ashamed of or bitch about, as you have consistently done through this forum.

Quebec's use of coal and gas(and nuclear for that matter) is so fractional to the total TWh generated compared to its hydro-electric output that Quebec is virtually GHG emission free. IIRC, they have the cleanest, safest supply of any other generating system in the industrialized world.
So any "improvement" would be more symbolic/ideological than anything else.

Then you go on about how McGuinty plans to shut down the coal fired plants by 2014. Well guess what, plans don't mean shit until they come to fruition. Those same plants were planned to be shut down by 2008.

I am curious though. You claimed McGuinty has added 8400MW of renewable energy generation to the supply since he got in. I can account for 2000MW between wind and biomass so maybe you can explain where the other 6400MW is coming from.

[ShepherdsDog]

This is just too funny and too typical.

[bootlegga]

Yogi Yogi:

Perhaps you just need a wee bit of tutelage. Start by googling Alberta alternative energy programs. If you actually do this, and then actually take some time to READ some of the info, you will discover this little tidbit. "Alberta produces more wind-power energy than any other province,( BTW that includes ONFUCKINTARIO!) and has more than 40 more such projects on the go or in developement stages.

Not according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association - Ontario produces the most at 1969 MW, while Alberta has between 891 (first document) and 1100 (second document);

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/Canada%20Curre ... city_e.pdf

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/Fed%20and%20pr ... atives.pdf

However, your point that Alberta IS investing in alternative energy is totally accurate. In fact, Alberta plans on having an additional 3200 MW of wind power installed by 2015 - which might put us in first place in wind power generation (Ontario will be adding approximatetly 2000 MW more in the same time-frame).

We're not the one-trick energy pony many in central Canada would believe.

[eureka]

Why do you persist men throwing in all the strawmen, PA? And distorting facts and figures?

For one example, Germany produces about 40% more emissions than Canada but it is nearly 150% bigger in population. Your claim that their renewal energy is not emission free is too foolish for words. Germany ranks second to the UK in emission reduction actions at this time.on reductions.

And what if 75% of Canada's energy production is emission free? Canada is still in the top two or three in per capita emissions and is doing precious little to deal with that. Some provinces are acting but they are limited in that they cannot act extra nationally in agreements.

Then, Germany is planning new coal and gas plants. That is because it is shutting down its nuclear production in the wake of Fukishima. But it still plans for the same emission reductions which means a vast increase in renewables; wind etc. Nuclear provides more than 20% and that now needs to be replaced in a hurry. Thus coal and gas with the CCS that Alberta is spending a fortune on.

A mistake, in my opinion and I suspect that it will change in Germany with political change.

Germany has reduced its emissions by more than 20% since 1990: more than its Kyoto target, Canada has increased its by some 30%.

As for Canada, particularly Alberta and Ontario, I judge by what is on the ground, not declared intentions. That is why I gave you the figures for approved and under construction. They are my own calculations from figures obtained from the respective departments. They are not political declarations.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

eureka eureka:

Why do you persist men throwing in all the strawmen, PA? And distorting facts and figures?

Says the great leftist lackey.

eureka eureka:

For one example, Germany produces about 40% more emissions than Canada but it is nearly 150% bigger in population. Your claim that their renewal energy is not emission free is too foolish for words.

I never claimed such, speaking of strawmen What I said was "What they are NOT is world leaders in GHG emission free energy.

eureka eureka:

Germany ranks second to the UK in emission reduction actions at this time.on reductions.

Hmm, remember that chart you linked to that showed who emits how much? Remember how Germany was ranked 6th and Canada was ranked 7th? Well, that chart has been updated with 2010 figures. Germany still ranks 6th, Canada ranks 10th.

eureka eureka:

And what if 75% of Canada's energy production is emission free? Canada is still in the top two or three in per capita emissions and is doing precious little to deal with that.

More lies, we're ranked 15th or do you not bother reading the little charts you like to link to?

eureka eureka:

Then, Germany is planning new coal and gas plants. That is because it is shutting down its nuclear production in the wake of Fukishima.

You almost got it. It's not shutting down its nuclear production, it's shutting down it's 8 oldest NGSs

eureka eureka:

But it still plans for the same emission reductions which means a vast increase in renewables; wind etc.

Yet a little further down, you claim you judge by what is on the ground. But yeah, plans definitely mean it's going to happen. We can see how plans go with the coal fired plants still in operation in Ontario that were supposed to be shut down by 2008.

eureka eureka:

Nuclear provides more than 20% and that now needs to be replaced in a hurry. Thus coal and gas with the CCS that Alberta is spending a fortune on.

And those coal and gas plants will remain until there until something more reliable and with more juice comes along.

eureka eureka:

A mistake, in my opinion and I suspect that it will change in Germany with political change.

Ah yes, bend to ideology instead of making sure there's a reliable, steady source of hydro.

eureka eureka:

Germany has reduced its emissions by more than 20% since 1990: more than its Kyoto target, Canada has increased its by some 30%.

And you can put the blame for more than half that increase squarely on the previous Liberal gov't, ie: further development of the oil sands under Liberal rule.

eureka eureka:

As for Canada, particularly Alberta and Ontario, I judge by what is on the ground, not declared intentions. That is why I gave you the figures for approved and under construction. They are my own calculations from figures obtained from the respective departments. They are not political declarations.

Great, so show me where this 8400MW of renewables are, that you claim McGuinty has added since coming into office.


Considering Canada's geographic size, I'd say the difference in CO2 per capita with Germany is proably due more to transportation than anything else.
I can't speak for all European countries, but the ones I've been too seem to have some form of centralized mass transit. For example, I can hop on a "city" bus in Leven, Scotland and go down the road to Pittenweem for a nominal extra fare. Much harder to do in a country as large as Canada.
Considering how the trucking industry has taken off in North America, especially since the advent of just-in-time shipping and the much vaster distances travelled compared to a tiny country like Germany and the almost absolute reliance we have on cars over here, it ain't Canada's energy sector that's the problem.

Not to put too fine a point on but these are the numbers.

(Country- Tons of CO2)
•1 United States 2,790,000,000
•2 China 2,680,000,000
•3 Russia 661,000,000
•4 India 583,000,000
•5 Japan 400,000,000
•6 Germany 356,000,000
•7 Australia 226,000,000
•8 South Africa 222,000,000
•9 United Kingdom 212,000,000
•10 South Korea 185,000,000
•11 Poland 166,000,000
•12 Italy 165,000,000
•13 Taiwan (China) 153,000,000
•14 Spain 148,000,000
•15 Canada 144,000,000

Notice Germany's standing compared to Canada's? Germany also has two of the world's top 25 highest CO2 emitting power plants. Canada doesn't even make that list. Germany's electricty production is STILL 62% derived from fossil fuels. Compare that to Canada's 26%. And finally, carbon intensity. Germany produces 612 kg of CO2/MWh. Almost triple Canada's carbon intensity of just 213kg of CO2/MWh.

Is there room for improvement in Canada? You bet. But to hear you yammer on about how Canada is the black sheep when it comes to CO2 emissions from power generation makes me fucking wanna puke. If you don't like the direction the country is going in, that's fine, yer entitled to your opinion. But if you're just gonna lie through your fucking teeth, maybe you'd be happier living elsewhere with an ideology more suited to your blind partisanship stupidity.

Oh, I finally found the link to the turbine pollution along the 401. All those pushpins show the location of a wind turbine. The area contains about half of Ontario's wind power generation.
http://windfarmrealities.org/?tag=ontario

The vast bulk of that land is PRIME farm land.

[eureka]

I understand that being up to date is not as important as riding your hobby horse, PS, but you could give it a try when you are accusing others of lying. You will have less egg on your face. What I posted about Canada's position is correct and based on current conditions. Not on your chart which takes in up to part of 2007. Actually, the emissions have been fairly stable since then due to the economic downturn - that includes a large drop in Ontario as manufacturing declines further for reasons of the recession and the petrodollar.

Since then, Canada's emissions have increased substantially while most of the others have declined. Canada is ow about 35% above its Kyoto target.

The oil sands alone are expected to produce between 108 and 140 megatonnes of CO2 by 2020 - depending on whose estimate one accepts. Whether blame attaches to the Liberals or Conservatives is irrelevant to the fact. It is obvious, though, that if Dion's carbon pricing had been put into place, the emissions would have been reduced.

Germany has announced plans to shut down nuclear facilities. That IS the reason for the proposed replacements.

Germany is a world leader in emission free power. In the order that I posted - the correct order.

Transportation is a crock. It is no more of a factor in Canada than in many countries and States.

Carbon intensity: You might like to read this to give you some ides of what it means and how it counts.http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html

Canada is the Black Sheep. It is the only country actively undermining international action and, so far, the only country that is proposing the massive increase that the oil sands will produce. Proportionately, that is greater than any other world development. And I did not limit to power, though, that is one area that can be greatly improved. That new coal plant for Alberta could be stopped saving three million megatonnes of additional CO2.

If you had any pride in country, you would be howling from the rooftops at Canada's government not suggesting that those who do care for that and humanity move somewhere else.

Turbines do not take up much agricultural land, prime or otherwise. Crops can,and are, e grown right around them.

[PluggyRug]

eureka eureka:

three million megatonnes of additional CO2.

Three million million? That's 3x10^12.

[eureka]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

eureka eureka:

three million megatonnes of additional CO2.

Three million million? That's 3x10^12.

It might as well be for all the creators care.

Obviously 3 MT. I just, like the Westerners, see everything there writ large!

[Gunnair]

eureka eureka:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

eureka eureka:

three million megatonnes of additional CO2.

Three million million? That's 3x10^12.

It might as well be for all the creators care.

Obviously 3 MT. I just, like the Westerners, see everything there writ large!

Oops... someone was caught lying again.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

eureka eureka:

I understand that being up to date is not as important as riding your hobby horse, PS, but you could give it a try when you are accusing others of lying. You will have less egg on your face. What I posted about Canada's position is correct and based on current conditions. Not on your chart which takes in up to part of 2007. Actually, the emissions have been fairly stable since then due to the economic downturn - that includes a large drop in Ontario as manufacturing declines further for reasons of the recession and the petrodollar.

Nope, the chart you originally linked to was from up to 2007. As far as the change in standings, Germany STILL 6th, Canada dropping to 10th are based on 2010 figures.

eureka eureka:

The oil sands alone are expected to produce between 108 and 140 megatonnes of CO2 by 2020 - depending on whose estimate one accepts. Whether blame attaches to the Liberals or Conservatives is irrelevant to the fact. It is obvious, though, that if Dion's carbon pricing had been put into place, the emissions would have been reduced.

Oh for sure. Ever rising gas prices AND taxes on gas have definitely reduced our dependency on automobiles so I'm sure higher carbon taxes would have cut the exploitation of the oil sands Once again, if your precious Liberals had any intention of doing anything about the oil sands, they had 12 fuckin' years to do it. They chose to allow the continued and increased exploration and exploitation.

eureka eureka:

Germany has announced plans to shut down nuclear facilities. That IS the reason for the proposed replacements.

And those replacements will be burning lignite, the dirtiest source of power there is.

eureka eureka:

Germany is a world leader in emission free power. In the order that I posted - the correct order.

See, right there, pure bullshit lie. Norway derives 98% of it's TOTAL generation from hydro-electric. France, 78% from nuclear. Germany and the UK ain't even fucking close to being numbers 1&2. Canada is 75% emission-free. Period.
Now, let's pretend for a moment that Germany is one of the world leaders in reduction strategies, it's also because they had a LOT farther to go to start catching up. When Germany surpasses Canada's 75% emission-free generation, then come back and tell me how fucking awesome the Germans are.
When Germany shuts down ALL of it's coal mines, as you want the oil sands shut down, come back and tell me how fucking awesome the Germans are.
If you want to see the reality of Germany's "green energy awesomeness" read;
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 86,00.html

[saturn_656]

It's a shame knee jerk politics has resulted in Germany abandoning nuclear power. Aside from large scale hydroelectric power, nuclear is the only power generation method capable of clean and reliable base load generation.

But replacing nuclear plants with coal burning facilities? Germany is Ontario, but in reverse. Hell for what we've seen so far here that may mean Germany is on the right track.

[FieryVulpine]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

It's a shame knee jerk politics has resulted in Germany abandoning nuclear power. Aside from large scale hydroelectric power, nuclear is the only power generation method capable of clean and reliable base load generation.

Well, relatively speaking because spent fuel rods remain hot for some time later, and radioactive many years after that. Then you have to store it somewhere away from major population centers until its half-life runs out.

[saturn_656]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

It's a shame knee jerk politics has resulted in Germany abandoning nuclear power. Aside from large scale hydroelectric power, nuclear is the only power generation method capable of clean and reliable base load generation.

Well, relatively speaking because spent fuel rods remain hot for some time later, and radioactive many years after that. Then you have to store it somewhere away from major population centers until its half-life runs out.

I'm not trying to say that nuclear is without downsides, long term storage being an issue, but I don't think anyone would recommend shutting down Pickering, Bruce, and Darlington and replacing them with coal burners on the scale of Nanticoke.

[FieryVulpine]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I'm not trying to say that nuclear is without downsides, long term storage being an issue, but I don't think anyone would recommend shutting down Pickering, Bruce, and Darlington and replacing them with coal burners on the scale of Nanticoke.

Believe me, I wouldn't recommend it either. I just thought it bears mentioning and I hope with some more research and more time, we can transition from nuclear fission to nuclear fusion.

[eureka]

Try reading it again, PA, and quit lying about what I posted. It does not matter a damn how many you bring in without emissions. And Norway is not what you say it is, btw. But it is not very relevant since it is a very small emitter anyway. Its oil fields have put it into a higher category but it is the only country in the world with a CCS programme and it is used with its oil to bury deep beneath the sea.

It is where emissions are going that is a question. Nothing else.

http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi