I have lived in Alberta for thirty plus years, and for most of that time coal was used to generate a preponderance of Alberta’s electricity. In my view, despite the “dirty coal” narrative, Alberta’s environment is pristine. Moreover, I believe that for Albertans to flourish, we need to do our utmost to ensure we have access to inexpensive and reliable energy; this need negates the use of wind generated and solar generated power. I know – sounds like crazy talk.
The unreliability of renewables mandates a parallel generation scheme (more likely fossil fuels than nuclear in this province). Why have two systems when one will do? Albertans have a lot of debt. We do not have the money to pay for a parallel renewable system – especially one that needs subsidies. We should choose one system – fossil fuels. The money we save on renewables can be used to pay down debt, or on social programs.
Notwithstanding the above, as we all know, diversity is our strength. Consequently, I would have both gas and coal fired power plants. Coal because it can be stored right at the powerplant, it is inexpensive, and Alberta has it in great abundance. Gas because it is inexpensive, clean burning, and Alberta has it in great abundance. Currently gas is cheap. When it becomes more expensive, we can burn more coal to generate inexpensive electricity. Remember, my goal is to ensure Albertans have access to inexpensive and reliable energy. Another strength of coal is that it can be stored right at the generating plant. We will be happy about that if there is ever an interruption in the gas supply as happened recently during the Texas blackouts.
I am not worried about Alberta’s environment. Alberta’s environment is fine despite what others have told you. We are under great pressure to not burn coal. China’s coal power plant capacity in 2020 is more than three times the rest of the world’s. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUKKBN2A308U) Do not worry. Alberta will still be pristine if we burn coal to generate a portion of the electricity we need. Let us allow Albertans to flourish with inexpensive and reliable energy.
Let me recommend the book “A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations” by Robert Bryce.
I don't think you can ignore the scientific evidence regarding the air and water pollution that comes with coal production and use. Nor the science behind global warming. One can't ignore all that by asserting "AB is fine" and saying "Hey, but China."
I'm all for science, but different scientists disagree on just about everything to do with the environment - so much for scientific evidence. People say "follow the science", but what they mean is "follow the science I follow".
And Alberta is not fine in terms of our economy. The environment is simply not our biggest concern. Do you find you live in a place that qualifies as polluted? In my view Alberta is pristine.
With regards to China, I'm afraid I have to offer another hyperlink (sorry):
Canada’s contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is small compared to other key energy-producing and consuming countries. As of 2016, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions were 779 Mt of CO2e, comprising just 1.6 per cent of worldwide GHG emissions of 49,358 megatonnes (MT).
So it seems to me a person can cripple Alberta's economy all they want, but that is all they'll do - they won't save the world from climate change, and they won't make an already beautiful and pristine place more beautiful and pristine except by a negligible amount.
Diversity is our strength - and that should include diversity of thought. I think we should allow Albertans to flourish with inexpensive and reliable energy.
Thanks. I think when people say, "follow the science" they mean follow majority consensus. The mere existence of a smaller number of outlier perspectives does not cancel out majority opinion. Long day, so I must link out as well: “Canada accounted for less than two per cent of the allied war effort in the Second World War but our leadership certainly made a difference," and there is the view too that "If everyone shrugs off their individual responsibilities, we’re all going to suffer." https://thenarwhal.ca/the-faulty-logic-behind-argument-canadas-emissions-drop-bucket/
We're some of the highest per capita emitters in the world and could do better. I count myself a citizen of the world and care about the planet beyond this province's borders. Rising sea levels and ocean acidification are serious issues.
Hi again, Percy. Thanks for writing back. Sorry if this seems poorly thought out, but I am trying to get this off to you before my workday begins.
Perhaps at this juncture we should have a definition of science. How about “Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained by observation and experimentation”. There’s no reference to a majority consensus, I’m afraid. A good thing, too, or else we might still think the sun rotated around the earth! Fortunately for us, Galileo was willing to stand against the orthodoxy of his day and make the case for the heliocentric system.
In reference to Canada’s contribution to the fight against Nazism and Fascism, I can only marvel at those Canadian men who stormed ashore at Juno Beach to overcome machine gun nests using grenades, rifles, and bayonets. Much safer to fight serious issues like climate change, that’s for sure.
It seems we have different views on what is important. I think it is important to allow Albertans to flourish with inexpensive and reliable energy. As a citizen of the world, you have a different view of what is important. We may well be the highest per capita emitters in the world, but I think that is probably due to our cold climate and sparse population. Too, when some three billion of your fellow citizens of the world have extremely limited access to electricity it is bound to skew our emission numbers upward. Do you have any thoughts on how to provide those less fortunate people outside Alberta’s borders access to electricity? I doubt they are living without electricity for the sake of the oceans. I think more electricity (and consequently less poverty) would lead to a cleaner, more pristine planet.
We can not live off love and they will shut down the oil and gas sector of that I am certain. With the increasing carbon taxation there is no way farmers will survive either. Buying electric combines and all other equipment after what they already spent for what they have, is not much of a financial option and most likely infeasible. The new progressives are moving to vegetarian diets eating non-meat products, so too the rancher shall be phased out. Then what? The tech industry shall grow as will Government as by then they will be running everything. Our educational Institutions should pretty much have the next generation indoctrinated and socialism will be the governing model of our once great country. Yes, you will own nothing, have nothing, and yes you shall be happy. You will have no other choice but to be. Glad I will not be here for your new and improved world.
Fossil fuels are a great source of energy. Problem is, by digging up and burning fossil fuels, we're cranking up the global thermostat. So we need to switch to carbon-free energy, basically by electrifying everything (e.g. cars) and generating a lot more electricity, over the next 30 years.
Not using fossil fuels means energy prices will be higher. That's unavoidable. To me it's like using unleaded gasoline even though leaded is cheaper, because we know that lead has terrible effects on children's brains.
I have lived in Alberta for thirty plus years, and for most of that time coal was used to generate a preponderance of Alberta’s electricity. In my view, despite the “dirty coal” narrative, Alberta’s environment is pristine. Moreover, I believe that for Albertans to flourish, we need to do our utmost to ensure we have access to inexpensive and reliable energy; this need negates the use of wind generated and solar generated power. I know – sounds like crazy talk.
The unreliability of renewables mandates a parallel generation scheme (more likely fossil fuels than nuclear in this province). Why have two systems when one will do? Albertans have a lot of debt. We do not have the money to pay for a parallel renewable system – especially one that needs subsidies. We should choose one system – fossil fuels. The money we save on renewables can be used to pay down debt, or on social programs.
Notwithstanding the above, as we all know, diversity is our strength. Consequently, I would have both gas and coal fired power plants. Coal because it can be stored right at the powerplant, it is inexpensive, and Alberta has it in great abundance. Gas because it is inexpensive, clean burning, and Alberta has it in great abundance. Currently gas is cheap. When it becomes more expensive, we can burn more coal to generate inexpensive electricity. Remember, my goal is to ensure Albertans have access to inexpensive and reliable energy. Another strength of coal is that it can be stored right at the generating plant. We will be happy about that if there is ever an interruption in the gas supply as happened recently during the Texas blackouts.
I am not worried about Alberta’s environment. Alberta’s environment is fine despite what others have told you. We are under great pressure to not burn coal. China’s coal power plant capacity in 2020 is more than three times the rest of the world’s. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUKKBN2A308U) Do not worry. Alberta will still be pristine if we burn coal to generate a portion of the electricity we need. Let us allow Albertans to flourish with inexpensive and reliable energy.
Let me recommend the book “A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations” by Robert Bryce.
I don't think you can ignore the scientific evidence regarding the air and water pollution that comes with coal production and use. Nor the science behind global warming. One can't ignore all that by asserting "AB is fine" and saying "Hey, but China."
Hi Percy. Thanks so much for reaching out. Sorry for this rushed response. Here's a link:
https://www.transalta.com/newsroom/feature-articles/new-air-quality-study-identifies-coal-as-minimal-source-of-edmontons-air-pollution/
I'm all for science, but different scientists disagree on just about everything to do with the environment - so much for scientific evidence. People say "follow the science", but what they mean is "follow the science I follow".
And Alberta is not fine in terms of our economy. The environment is simply not our biggest concern. Do you find you live in a place that qualifies as polluted? In my view Alberta is pristine.
With regards to China, I'm afraid I have to offer another hyperlink (sorry):
https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/evaluating-the-canadian-oil-and-gas-sectors-ghg-emissions-intensity-record/
Here's the key point from the above link:
Canada’s contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is small compared to other key energy-producing and consuming countries. As of 2016, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions were 779 Mt of CO2e, comprising just 1.6 per cent of worldwide GHG emissions of 49,358 megatonnes (MT).
So it seems to me a person can cripple Alberta's economy all they want, but that is all they'll do - they won't save the world from climate change, and they won't make an already beautiful and pristine place more beautiful and pristine except by a negligible amount.
Diversity is our strength - and that should include diversity of thought. I think we should allow Albertans to flourish with inexpensive and reliable energy.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Thanks. I think when people say, "follow the science" they mean follow majority consensus. The mere existence of a smaller number of outlier perspectives does not cancel out majority opinion. Long day, so I must link out as well: “Canada accounted for less than two per cent of the allied war effort in the Second World War but our leadership certainly made a difference," and there is the view too that "If everyone shrugs off their individual responsibilities, we’re all going to suffer." https://thenarwhal.ca/the-faulty-logic-behind-argument-canadas-emissions-drop-bucket/
We're some of the highest per capita emitters in the world and could do better. I count myself a citizen of the world and care about the planet beyond this province's borders. Rising sea levels and ocean acidification are serious issues.
Hi again, Percy. Thanks for writing back. Sorry if this seems poorly thought out, but I am trying to get this off to you before my workday begins.
Perhaps at this juncture we should have a definition of science. How about “Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained by observation and experimentation”. There’s no reference to a majority consensus, I’m afraid. A good thing, too, or else we might still think the sun rotated around the earth! Fortunately for us, Galileo was willing to stand against the orthodoxy of his day and make the case for the heliocentric system.
In reference to Canada’s contribution to the fight against Nazism and Fascism, I can only marvel at those Canadian men who stormed ashore at Juno Beach to overcome machine gun nests using grenades, rifles, and bayonets. Much safer to fight serious issues like climate change, that’s for sure.
It seems we have different views on what is important. I think it is important to allow Albertans to flourish with inexpensive and reliable energy. As a citizen of the world, you have a different view of what is important. We may well be the highest per capita emitters in the world, but I think that is probably due to our cold climate and sparse population. Too, when some three billion of your fellow citizens of the world have extremely limited access to electricity it is bound to skew our emission numbers upward. Do you have any thoughts on how to provide those less fortunate people outside Alberta’s borders access to electricity? I doubt they are living without electricity for the sake of the oceans. I think more electricity (and consequently less poverty) would lead to a cleaner, more pristine planet.
We can not live off love and they will shut down the oil and gas sector of that I am certain. With the increasing carbon taxation there is no way farmers will survive either. Buying electric combines and all other equipment after what they already spent for what they have, is not much of a financial option and most likely infeasible. The new progressives are moving to vegetarian diets eating non-meat products, so too the rancher shall be phased out. Then what? The tech industry shall grow as will Government as by then they will be running everything. Our educational Institutions should pretty much have the next generation indoctrinated and socialism will be the governing model of our once great country. Yes, you will own nothing, have nothing, and yes you shall be happy. You will have no other choice but to be. Glad I will not be here for your new and improved world.
just one itty-bitty little concern here; once OGNC becomes the status quo, how long before it morphs into NOGC — no oil, gas, or coal?
2050.
I thought it would be 2030 as it will cost 170 a metric ton. Who can afford that with no jobs and no hope.
Fossil fuels are a great source of energy. Problem is, by digging up and burning fossil fuels, we're cranking up the global thermostat. So we need to switch to carbon-free energy, basically by electrifying everything (e.g. cars) and generating a lot more electricity, over the next 30 years.
Not using fossil fuels means energy prices will be higher. That's unavoidable. To me it's like using unleaded gasoline even though leaded is cheaper, because we know that lead has terrible effects on children's brains.
And that electricity will come from? Oh, right — windmills & solar panels
Or nuclear. Or hydro over long-distance transmission lines. Or geothermal. Or even natural gas with 100% carbon capture and storage.
Oh — better get to work on those. Plus, a lot of the folks who hate fossils aren’t too crazy about a lot of stuff on your list. In the meantime …