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-termists, but really?

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

I may be that I am being very thick and missing the point here but, assuming that the monies had been diverted to "better" causes, how would that affect renewables being universally practical other than resulting in less energy being required?

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.

Why then is "advanced" Germany, where the Greens are "influential", dropping nuclear and expanding coal for electrical power generation?

What do you mean by fossil fuel "subsidies"? Tax beaks or something else?

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.

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.

Zzzzzz.

Fair enough

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

Yes. I suppose so. Unless of course you start to think about it.

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.

Did jimf really say that Germany was expanding coal? Surely not.

They're expanding wind power and other renewables rather aggressively to replace nuclear.

Knowing Germany rather well, I expect they'll succeed.

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

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?

Oh, sorry but I missed this post last night (bear in mind that I'm in EDT+6 zone and that the wine is cheap and wonderful.

If you read your own link a bit more carefully you'll find that only the BBC one reports correctly that the recently announced coal plants are viewed by the government as replacements for the very old brown coal burners in the former East.

The other two links are speculation on Industry strategy in the run up to 2022
based on current carbon tax structures and subsidies. These will change after the next federal election whoever wins, but especially if the Greens become again a partner in the Bundesregierungskoalition.

Merkel has enough on her plate until then.

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.

OK. If you have an appropriate location for real geothermal (not just a heat pump) you're lucky. Still it'd be expensive to set up, solar and wind less so.

But why do you want to go off grid anyway (assuming you're on-grid now)?

This is a bit like becoming a vegan fanatic IMHO, you should instead be spending your efforts on making the grid less dependent on fossil fuels and making sure that your personal energy requirements are minimized.