they are actually expanding land base up in the peace because its dirt cheap and they can just clear trees out. still its way up there they get a half assed crop ever 2 or 3 years. this lost farmland is no issue from a food supply point of view period. we consume 5 million tonnes of wheat in canada and grow 22 Million. supply growth on grains is 3% per year in Canada, thats an extra 1.5 Million MT of Grains grown every year compounding. losing 20,000 MT of production is irrelevant
site C decision ?
Yes, all that pollution from those hydro generators in BC. Even if the bulk of power for EVs comes from coal, the efficiency still means that the pollution per car per km travelled is much less.
this report states that the emissions of a model s are going to be similar to that of a honda civic or a scion if your electricity comes from a coal plant. the author took a report by someone else to validiate and while he found that the original reports numbers were high, he also found that the numbers touted on tesla's site were low.
so while better than a similar luxury performance car, i don't know if you can say it's much less.
for us in bc where we have or potentially have abundant hydro, the electric car is a good thing. for others it's not necessarily the clean and easy vehicle it's touted to be. however, if that tesla was an electric version of the smart car for example and people were driving those en masse then there would be a significant difference in the grand equation.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Hanford?
Hanford was never intended to be and never has been a civilian power production facility. It was built in 1942 as a nuclear research laboratory to produce Uranium and Plutonium and turned into a refining center for the Manhattan project and beyond, generating fissile materials for the US nuclear arsenal. It is currently a nuclear storage facility.
they are actually expanding land base up in the peace because its dirt cheap and they can just clear trees out. still its way up there they get a half assed crop ever 2 or 3 years. this lost farmland is no issue from a food supply point of view period. we consume 5 million tonnes of wheat in canada and grow 22 Million. supply growth on grains is 3% per year in Canada, thats an extra 1.5 Million MT of Grains grown every year compounding. losing 20,000 MT of production is irrelevant
yeah, i get your side on the agricultural value. in the end from a production point it's not a great loss in respect to the "clean" energy gained from building the dam. i wonder if the courts will see it the same way?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
yeah, but they're clumping class 1 to 5 lands into the same package. if you look at the class definitions for agricultural land there's a big difference between class 1 and 5.
scroll down a bit for teh definitions:
They said over 80% of the 16,000 ha of Class 1 land in the Peace River Region is unaffected. There is also a big difference between the productivity of agricultural land in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and the Peace River country due to the growing season. BTW, Hydro also claims that the dam deal includes a $20 million agricultural expansion fund for the region.
those Numbers are just BC most of the growing area in the peace river region is in Alberta
They said over 80% of the 16,000 ha of Class 1 land in the Peace River Region is unaffected. There is also a big difference between the productivity of agricultural land in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and the Peace River country due to the growing season.
nope, they said class 1 to 5, they did not specifically state how much class one land there was. i think it's important the govt is clear with the numbers and doesn't make them ambiguous as they have in that fact sheet.
from the page you posted:
"In the Peace valley, more than 16,000 hectares (or more than 80 per cent) of Class 1 to 5 lands would
remain available."
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
this report states that the emissions of a model s are going to be similar to that of a honda civic or a scion if your electricity comes from a coal plant. the author took a report by someone else to validiate and while he found that the original reports numbers were high, he also found that the numbers touted on tesla's site were low.
I won't dispute the claim … under the assumption that in a given region 100% of power is generated from coal. However, that is an imaginary place. No North American region is 100% coal (or even as much as 80% AFAIK), and I'd bet there are few, if any, worldwide. Well, maybe some areas of China?
So the comparison is kind of pointless as soon as non-coal and non-emitting power sources are added into the mix in any significant amounts.
for us in bc where we have or potentially have abundant hydro, the electric car is a good thing. for others it's not necessarily the clean and easy vehicle it's touted to be. however, if that tesla was an electric version of the smart car for example and people were driving those en masse then there would be a significant difference in the grand equation.
I often follow the Green Car Reports site, so here's my grain of salt;
I find they have a very negative view on the Tesla. I don't know why, but for every article on that site praising the Tesla, there are another two or three negative reports. The GCR article cross references another article in Seeking Alpha, which allows pretty much anyone to publish an article without any review. The articles are nothing but op-ed. Seeking Alpha is not a tech site, but an investor site where many contributors are known short-sellers of TSLA. No small amount of conflict of interest here!
But there's more! All of this BS is drawn from an article printed in some Alberta paper several years ago. The article has been debunked over and over again, and was proven that the author pretty much fabricated the numbers and exaggerated others. I think the article compared a Prius to a Hummer and "proved" that the Hummer was "greener". As an example of the quality of research, the article included greenhouse gases emitted during the manufacturing process for the Prius, but somehow overlooked them for the Hummer. Dishonest reporting, at best. And yet, still the myth survives.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Is that a good use of rate payers money?
That is where these incentives come from, any incentive means someone else is paying a higher rate for their power to decrease the cost of the person that owns the equipment getting the incentive.
Yah, actually, I think it's one of the best uses of tax money imaginable (well, after education, health care and feeding the poor). Not rate payers, but tax payers - as in, the rebate should come from provincial general tax revenues as part of the bigger picture of increasing renewable energy generating capacity.
This is how we get er done. The German model is costly, but it is also working. Carbon emissions and global warming are the biggest problem of our time and needs to be prioritized accordingly.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
I won't dispute the claim … under the assumption that in a given region 100% of power is generated from coal. However, that is an imaginary place. No North American region is 100% coal (or even as much as 80% AFAIK), and I'd bet there are few, if any, worldwide. Well, maybe some areas of China?
So the comparison is kind of pointless as soon as non-coal and non-emitting power sources are added into the mix in any significant amounts.
fair, but while i would called the report skewed i wouldn't call it pointless. and from my perspective, i would not be including nuclear in the non-emitting category of power generation.
I often follow the Green Car Reports site, so here's my grain of salt;
I find they have a very negative view on the Tesla. I don't know why, but for every article on that site praising the Tesla, there are another two or three negative reports. The GCR article cross references another article in Seeking Alpha, which allows pretty much anyone to publish an article without any review. The articles are nothing but op-ed. Seeking Alpha is not a tech site, but an investor site where many contributors are known short-sellers of TSLA. No small amount of conflict of interest here!
But there's more! All of this BS is drawn from an article printed in some Alberta paper several years ago. The article has been debunked over and over again, and was proven that the author pretty much fabricated the numbers and exaggerated others. I think the article compared a Prius to a Hummer and "proved" that the Hummer was "greener". As an example of the quality of research, the article included greenhouse gases emitted during the manufacturing process for the Prius, but somehow overlooked them for the Hummer. Dishonest reporting, at best. And yet, still the myth survives.
yes i know that article was debunked as the article i linked to also debunks it.
i brought that point forth becuase you implied that even with all coal generation that electric is still "much better" than gas and that appear to not be the case. if you could put a number on that though to define "much" it would make the argument more substantive. ie, even with coal, electric cars still have 25% fewer emissions.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Build the dam. We'll need the electricity.
BC Hydro is spending over a billion dollars to replace the John Hart facility.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
This is how we get er done. The German model is costly, but it is also working. Carbon emissions and global warming are the biggest problem of our time and needs to be prioritized accordingly.
1 - we already discussed this, the German model is not working
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/335806/germany-shows-renewable-energy-has-failed-and-other-strange-ideas
2 - we need to be very careful on how much we spend on 'global warming'. Much to the dismay of the yelling green fanatics, many people disagree that we should spend an incredible amount of money in North America to reduce carbon emissions, especially considering that any change we make here will be irrelevant in reducing carbon emissions. Put another way, why should we reduce our standard of living while places like China will add a new coal plant every 3 weeks?
Put another way, why should we reduce our standard of living while places like China will add a new coal plant every 3 weeks?
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Put another way, why should we reduce our standard of living while places like China will add a new coal plant every 3 weeks?
to paraphrase our esteemed colleague KenN, that's a shitty way to look at things.
seriously, the attitude around how we use our resources needs to change and until that happens on a human (global) scale, things will only continue to get worse. so, we in the western world need to set the example and be the leaders for change.
any reduction is going to be good, so just because china continues to pee in the pool it doesn't mean that we should as well.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Carbon emissions and global warming are the biggest problem of our time and needs to be prioritized accordingly.
re global warming, the level of impact that carbon emissions from our lifestyle are having on climate change are still up for debate. while i don't deny that our carbon emissions are having an impact, that level is still uncertain. there are other factors contributing to climate change and to rest it on carbon emissions is a bad idea that only give those who whould argue against it more fuel to add to their fire (ha!).
i'd say the biggest problem of our time is our over use of resources and over population of the planet. we need to fix our attitudes about how we use this place called earth. it's a paradigm shift that has to take place.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Forum jump:
