Kimberly sun mine

[hobbyguy]

That's really the point Smurf. Without subsides and storage solar and wind are pretty useless.

The ideologues will point to lithium storage batteries being sold by scammers like Elon Musk. Why did Elon Musk build a huge Li-ion battery plant? Because he KNOWS wind and solar are mostly a scam.

The most cost effective mass storage device? Pumped hydro (which requires a dam and a reservoir). Why pump it (which requires more solar and wind!) when you can have nature simply refill the reservoir and generate the electricity when it is needed?

It is so simple, but somehow it evades the NDP ideologues and Green loonies. John Horgan actually knows that, but sold his soul out when he caved to green ideologue who threw a hissy fit and threatened to leave caucus when he supported site C. Andrew Weaver supported site C, and advocated for it for years, before he too succumbed to green ideologues for political purposes.

Ask those green ideologues what an ohm is, and what the relationship between ohms, volts and amps is? They'll be tapping on Google on their smart phones to avoid saying, "duh, I dunno - they didn't teach me that in basket weaving 202 - political science"

[hobbyguy]

For some, the pay wall will block this, so I will quote some key paragraphs: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/on-nuclear-power-frances-green-ideologues-cant-see-the-forest-for-the-trees/article35755195/

"There might be a way for the world to meet its carbon-reduction targets that does not involve building more nuclear power plants. The problem is, no one has come up with one. Until that happens, politicians need to get real about nuclear energy’s essential role in saving the planet.

Unfortunately, most of them still have their heads stuck in their solar panels."

"The latest greener-than-thou politician to make the perfect the enemy of the good is France’s awkwardly titled Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, Nicolas Hulot. This month, Mr. Hulot announced the shutdown of as many as 17 of France’s 58 nuclear reactors over the next eight years as part of President Emmanuel Macron’s promise to cut his country’s reliance on nuclear-generated electricity to 50 per cent from 75 per cent by 2025.

Mr. Hulot says he has “absolute faith” in renewable power sources, mainly wind and solar energy, to fill the gap. But as Germany shows, closing emissions-free nuclear power plants, more often than not, leads to burning more fossil fuels to produce power. That’s because wind and solar remain intermittent power sources, while nuclear, coal and natural gas plants can run full-steam 24/7."

In a report last month, the International Energy Agency said “premature closure of operational nuclear power plants remains a major threat to meeting targets,” set under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, to prevent global temperatures from rising more than two degrees above preindustrial levels by the end of the century.

But don’t try telling that to Mr. Hulot. A former star television journalist tapped by Mr. Macron to boost his credibility with environmentalists, Mr. Hulot is France’s version of David Suzuki. In 2012, he sought the presidential nomination for France’s anti-nuclear Green Party. He appears unmoved by expert warnings that France will pay a heavy environmental and economic price if he sticks to his nuclear-reduction plan."

Politicians who cave to the anti-nuclear lobby are deluding themselves or misleading voters when they insist wind and solar can make up the difference.

“Increasing nuclear capacity deployment could help bridge the [two-degree scenario] gap and fulfill the recognized potential of nuclear energy to contribute significantly to global decarbonization,” the IEA report said. It called for “clear and consistent policy support for existing and new capacity, including clean-energy incentive schemes for development of nuclear alongside other clean forms of energy.”

The carbon footprint of France is more than 25% lower than "windy" Denmark. The carbon footprint of France is more than 25% lower than "solar-windy" Germany. Why? Nuclear power.

The carbon footprint of BC residents is very close to those of Denmark and Germany. Why? Hydro power. What is missing in the Canadian provinces with the highest carbon footprints? Hydro power and nuclear power.

As the writer points out, the "green" crowd have their heads stuck up their solar panels.

[Smurf]

Are you saying that nuclear has a carbon footprint of approximately 25% less than Hydro?

hobbyguy wrote:

The carbon footprint of France is more than 25% lower than "windy" Denmark. The carbon footprint of France is more than 25% lower than "solar-windy" Germany. Why? Nuclear power.

The carbon footprint of BC residents is very close to those of Denmark and Germany. Why? Hydro power. What is missing in the Canadian provinces with the highest carbon footprints? Hydro power and nuclear power.

BC is almost the same as Germany and Denmark but approximately 25% higher than France due to nuclear.

[hobbyguy]

No. But nuclear has an extremely low carbon footprint.

It is actually amazing that BC is very close to the same carbon footprint/capita as Denmark and Germany, as we do NOT have their highly developed transit systems that include high speed trains, subways, etc. etc. Nor do Germany or Denmark have the distances to travel that we do.

BC's carbon footprint comes primarily from transportation and housing. On those fronts Denmark and Germany are ahead of us. Where we catch up is our hydro electric generation. Both Denmark and Germany rely on a LOT of fossil fuels for electricity generation.

BC is 95% renewable electricity production (+/-) - almost all of that hydro.
Germany is 53% fossil fuel electricity production - 24.9% of their electricity production is from dirty brown coal.

That's why I keep telling folks - we don't have the same issues as places like Germany that are touting wind/solar - wind and solar are a solution for a problem we don't have.

If you really want to go after GHG emissions, build a "bullet" train system linking Vancouver, Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton et al. Problem is - we will all be flat broke if we do that, so our best option is to promote EVs and charging stations.

Housing is the most intractable part. Yah, you can build "net zero" houses and "LEED" buildings. But most folks can't afford that. Those puppies are expensive!

[Smurf]

Thanks, I just thought you were trying to link it to Hydro production.