Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10786182)

I accept that you likely believe I only post to annoy you but I have a genuine question for you: What advances do you believe will occur in a single generation that will make renewables universally practical? The ability of some regions to be able to rely upon hydro will always be limited and I assume the same would apply for wind and solar (I appreciate that there are other renewables).

Do you envisage a massive increase in the efficiency of plants using such renewables or do you anticipate some other breakthrough. In other words, what is it that is preventing them from being universally practical at the moment?

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10786308)

Wasting money on the Oil Sands (for example) and not spending a fraction of the amount on energy conservation. In perfectly simple ways, which were available, oh, 30 years ago, but ignored.

That's the only reason I suggest that another generation of nuclear is now necessary. Because Big Oil has dominated the propaganda wars for decades.

A local example (local to where I often live, Toronto). Enbridge wants to spend $653M building a pipeline from Pennsylvania to Toronto to import fracked gas from there to here.

If they (or someone else) spent half, even a quarter, of that amount on insulation and such like they wouldn't need to bother.

But they're in the business of making profit, not that of being responsible.

This may seem all very well to the short-termoists, but really?

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10784889)

Rhetoric aside, I'm on record of agreeing that we need ONE more generation of nuclear until renewables are universally practical. That will happen sooner if the subsidies to fossil fuel cease tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10786324)

OK

As you may know, I am no fan of big-oil at all. My provincial taxes are lower because of it, a fair number of my clients must be directly or indirectly employed by it but, I am not frightened of taxes and there are other clients;)

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10786348)

Oh, I see. Just interested in the pound in your pocket then?

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 10786353)

How much did you spend on the carbon offset for the emissions generated by your most recent intercontinental journey? Unless you went on the Oniden Line of course.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10786348)

Oh, I see. Just interested in the pound in your pocket then?



Very thick, yes.



You may accept that I am genuinely not interested in your personal problems. I have bigger fish to fry.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10786372)

Fair enough

I shall remain forever ignorant of the point you were trying to make.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 10786334)

Originally Posted by ExKiwilass (Post 10786385)

Because of what happened in Japan during the earthquake. Nuke energy become politically unpopular in Germany as a result, even though Germany, from my understanding, is not an earthquake prone country.

But it's okay for AB to expect earthquake-prone BC to take it's tar.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10786324)

On a personal level, as I now live in the boonies, it appears to me that I should be able to live off the grid with relative ease. However, this is not proving to be the case and, fortunately, I am not as constrained by finances as others might.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 10786450)

Coal in Germany..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19168574

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/2...tions-in-2013/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93P0PI20130426

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10786644)

I'm interested in this. Here, in Ontario, the electric bill is structured so that most of the cost is fixed, it's $200/month whether one turns on a light or not. $2400/year/forever is a significant amount, especially allowing that the supply is erratic, a backup facility is needed and has some cost. We've been looking at solar panels, discrete windmills and the like but none seem even vaguely viable. What options have you considered?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10787525)

Solar, geothermal and wind together with the required adjustments to the house (underfloor heating etc.). For the most part, I have come to the same conclusion as you.