Will money and arrogance cost Christy Clark the election?

[George+]

Or grossly arrogant and shortsighted to
Think that hydro is the only solution.

[The Green Barbarian]

Or grossly arrogant and shortsighted to
Think that hydro I'd the only solution.

I agree. LNG is another solution for sure. Nuclear too if need be.

[The Green Barbarian]

So...both of you say no to renewables other than hydro?

Stone Age thinking.

Are you willing to pay for these "renewables" given how grossly expensive they are? There are 60,000 families in Ontario now living in the Stone Age because their power was cut off thanks to Ontario stupidly raising rates insanely high all to appease the goofballs who want to continue to push solar and wind scams. Shame on all those who insist on governments implementing these horrible policies. You obviously hate the poor so much you want to see them suffer and die. Just gross.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2825421/energ ... dro-bills/

Over the past ten years, hydro rates in Ontario have skyrocketed. On average, the price consumers pay for electricity has more than doubled. For rural customers, the majority of which are served by Hydro One, steep delivery chargers and distribution fees have made these increases even more significant – with some households paying in excess of $1,000 a month for hydro.

“While I’m still not using the word crisis,” said Thibeault. “I know it’s important. For one family if it’s a hundred bucks out of their own pocket that’s a crisis for them and I get that.”

According to the OEB, nearly 60,000 residential customers were disconnected from their hydro services in Ontario for non-payment last year – 9,772 of which were Hydro One customers. The OEB claims utility providers reconnect 99 per cent of households within two business days of disconnection. However, closer analysis of the data provided by the OEB shows that for Hydro One, this figure is significantly lower.

[mr.bandaid]

So why don't you start a thread about Hydro and alternate power and leave this one to what it is about, Christy Clark and the arrogant liberal government.

[rustled]

So why don't you start a thread about Hydro and alternate power and leave this one to what it is about, Christy Clark and the arrogant liberal government.

Hm. If George+ (and others) use Site C as "proof" of Clark's arrogance, it seems likely people will comment about that.

Is moving forward with Site C proof of arrogance, or simply good policy? Many of us feel it's the latter, regardless of whether or not the former has any bearing at all.

[George+]

I only see a couple people lining up for nuclear power.

Oh, wait. There is Christy.!

[neilsimon]

I only see a couple people lining up for nuclear power.

Oh, wait. There is Christy.!

In fairness, properly implemented and away from dangerous areas, such as fault-lines, nuclear power may just be the best currently available in terms of pollution and cost. It has a really bad rap, but with modern systems, we can have safe, clean and efficient power. Of course, nuclear fusion based power would be better still, but we're not quite there yet.

[The Green Barbarian]

In fairness, properly implemented and away from dangerous areas, such as fault-lines, nuclear power may just be the best currently available in terms of pollution and cost. It has a really bad rap, but with modern systems, we can have safe, clean and efficient power. Of course, nuclear fusion based power would be better still, but we're not quite there yet.

I agree. This is why I don't get why those who believe in the man-made climate change hype aren't all pushing nuclear power. If you honestly believe that mankind is somehow capable of altering the weather via CO2 emissions, then they should all be saying that nuclear power is the only way to go. That's why I think this whole Green agenda is a giant ball of bunk. They don't care about the environment, its all about power and control.

[neilsimon]

Not completely on topic, but here is a breakdown of the cost, in human lives, of different types of power:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#2aeee50f709b
And why hydro isn't always as clean as some people think:
http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/2013/09/17/carbonfootprintofhydropower/
Basically, anything that prevents another coal, oil, bio-mass, or to a lesser extent, natural gas power station is good.

[The Green Barbarian]

Not completely on topic, but here is a breakdown of the cost, in human lives, of different types of power:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#2aeee50f709b
And why hydro isn't always as clean as some people think:
http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/2013/09/17/carbonfootprintofhydropower/
Basically, anything that prevents another coal, oil, bio-mass, or to a lesser extent, natural gas power station is good.

I for one could care less about carbon footprints, as I think this is a made-up phrase that really means nothing. The real issue for me is particulate pollution. LNG is great in that there are almost no particulates, very clean burning.

[rustled]

I for one could care less about carbon footprints, as I think this is a made-up phrase that really means nothing. The real issue for me is particulate pollution. LNG is great in that there are almost no particulates, very clean burning.

Agreed, GB.

It's unconscionable that so many people who will get exercised over carbon footprints manage to ignore the harm done by solar and wind.

Interesting discussion of Site C going on in the Site C thread. From what I'm reading there, I find it highly unlikely people will get any traction accusing Clark and/or the Liberals of "arrogance" for pushing this project through.

[George+]

Clark's "push"may need Green support or?
Their history does not favor her.
Even as a majority she can be defeated by a couple of her own concerned MLAs.

There are no safe sites for nuclear power, anymore or for waste storage.
Earthquakes, flooding, natural and man made disasters can happen anywhere, now.
No one ever thought downtown Calgary would flood.

Ignoring the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide build up is just plain dumb.
Cue the Ranters and climate change deniers.

[Merry]

There are no safe sites for nuclear power, anymore or for waste storage.
Earthquakes, flooding, natural and man made disasters can happen anywhere, now.
No one ever thought downtown Calgary would flood.

I agree with you on this. IMO nuclear power should only be considered as an absolute last resort, and we're not at that point yet (and hopefully never will be).

Hydro Electric Power may not be the "perfect" solution to our power needs but, IMO, it is the "best of a bad bunch".

Geo thermal involves "fracking" which is not a good idea in an earthquake zone, and solar and wind cannot provide enough power at peak times (when it's most needed). Besides which, a lot of the solar technology is manufactured in China at great cost to the environment, which mostly negates any perceived environmental benefits. And wind power is known to be unsightly, noisy, and responsible for killing a lot of birds.

[neilsimon]

I agree with you on this. IMO nuclear power should only be considered as an absolute last resort, and we're not at that point yet (and hopefully never will be).

If we were still stuck with 50 year old technology, I would agree, but we aren't. The risks can be managed and we know enough to make it safer than most other forms of power generation.

Hydro Electric Power may not be the "perfect" solution to our power needs but, IMO, it is the "best of a bad bunch".

The damage it does to the ecosystem and the potential emissions mean that it certainly is "of a bad bunch".

Geo thermal involves "fracking" which is not a good idea in an earthquake zone, and solar and wind cannot provide enough power at peak times (when it's most needed).

This is a problem we can address with battery banks, and if we modify the grid to take advantage of batteries in electric cars as a sort of reserve and other such approaches.

Besides which, a lot of the solar technology is manufactured in China at great cost to the environment, which mostly negates any perceived environmental benefits. And wind power is known to be unsightly, noisy, and responsible for killing a lot of birds.

Most wind farms are generally far enough away from population centres that the noise isn't much of an issue. Certainly no worse than a nearby highway. They are far less unsightly than most other sources of power and they kill fewer birds than cats and glass sided buildings. Honestly, where suitable, they are a great source of power, but certainly only part of the solution.

[rustled]

I agree with you on this. IMO nuclear power should only be considered as an absolute last resort, and we're not at that point yet (and hopefully never will be).

If we were still stuck with 50 year old technology, I would agree, but we aren't. The risks can be managed and we know enough to make it safer than most other forms of power generation.

Hydro Electric Power may not be the "perfect" solution to our power needs but, IMO, it is the "best of a bad bunch".

The damage it does to the ecosystem and the potential emissions mean that it certainly is "of a bad bunch".

Geo thermal involves "fracking" which is not a good idea in an earthquake zone, and solar and wind cannot provide enough power at peak times (when it's most needed).

This is a problem we can address with battery banks, and if we modify the grid to take advantage of batteries in electric cars as a sort of reserve and other such approaches.

Besides which, a lot of the solar technology is manufactured in China at great cost to the environment, which mostly negates any perceived environmental benefits. And wind power is known to be unsightly, noisy, and responsible for killing a lot of birds.

Most wind farms are generally far enough away from population centres that the noise isn't much of an issue. Certainly no worse than a nearby highway. They are far less unsightly than most other sources of power and they kill fewer birds than cats and glass sided buildings. Honestly, where suitable, they are a great source of power, but certainly only part of the solution.

While I completely agree re: nuclear, it's interesting you'd choose to emphasize the potential damage from hydro while minimizing the damage done by solar and wind farms.