BC Election issues

[neilsimon]

use up our own supply until electric takes over . once electric semis start being used half the demand is gone .

Electric semi's are one thing, I'll be impressed when I see an electric jet.

Not sure I buy into it or its practicality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohig71bwRUE

[hobbyguy]

Actually electric semis is where the notion of EVs falls apart. The reason is very simple. Energy density.

Lithium Ion battery energy density = .9-2.43 MJ/L

Diesel fuel energy density = 35.86 MJ/L

LNG energy density = 22.5 MJ/L

So LNG, a cleaner burning fuel that IS being adopted for commercial vehicles has 10 times the energy density as Li-ion batteries. Plus when the vehicle needs refueling (recharging) it is a matter of a few minutes.

Diesel is 14 times the energy density of Li-ion batteries.

(Offsetting that somewhat is the fact that electric motors are more efficient than diesel, but some of that advantage gets lost in the charge/discharge efficiency of Li-ion batteries.)

Either way, efficient commercial transport has to run on a schedule, and interrupting to charge Li-ion batteries comes at a very significant cost. On top of that, the weight penalty of the Li-ion batteries would affect payload, resulting in an appreciable increase in freight costs. The alternative is replaceable battery packs - but that brings with it huge costs and infrastructure requirements.

Essentially, without an exponential increase in battery storage density the notion of electric commercial vehicles is not practical. Will that exponential increase in energy density from batteries be possible, and if so when? No idea.

The only relation between that and our election issues is that a number of issues were raised in the election where their is no pragmatic solution in the short term. Some those views stem from rigid ideological positions, like environmentalism, that fail to understand the scope and implications of some of what they preach.

Another one of those ideological dogmas is mentioned in this thread. "Fission reactors are too dangerous". Ahem, Gen III and Gen IV are specifically designed so that they can NOT ever suffer a meltdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

And then moving into Gen IV, you find fission reactors that run on spent fuel from other reactors: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/ ... actor.html

"Transatomic, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff is developing a nuclear reactor designed to overcome the major barriers to nuclear power. For the anti-nuclear folks the design offers to burn up the existing spent fuel from the world’s fleet of nuclear reactors in a design that doesn’t offer a chance for a meltdown"

By the time site C is completed, and its capacity used, there is a good chance that those Gen IV reactors will become available. IF so, that would make wind and solar power look quaint and old fashioned very quickly.

Our dynamic and changing world can not afford political parties that hang their hats on ideologies when promulgating policy.

[maryjane48]

doesnt matter ong is still burning carbon and will be over looked . ev is the future no matter how much you try and cling to the past . your saying cling to landlines and im saying wireleess is the way forward im afraid

[Urban Cowboy]

doesnt matter ong is still burning carbon and will be over looked . ev is the future no matter how much you try and cling to the past . your saying cling to landlines and im saying wireleess is the way forward im afraid

Yeah and I recall a time when smoking cigarettes was encouraged.

Whenever I read your posts my BS meter pegs instantly.

[hobbyguy]

MJ - I specifically posted the energy densities in MJ/L

Just for you. So you could graphically see that the physics doesn't allow for a solution on the path that EVs are taking.

Think about that MJ/L - density.

[The Green Barbarian]

doesnt matter ong is still burning carbon

It's actually burning ethane/methane/propane/butane. What are you talking about regarding "burning carbon"? What does this mean? LNG is an extremely clean and efficient energy source. The entire world would benefit from using LNG and should be using it.

[The Green Barbarian]

Electric semi's are one thing, I'll be impressed when I see an electric jet.

I'll be even more impressed when all of the leftists here get on that jet. They can be the first to test drive it.

[hobbyguy]

In talking about election issues, I reference the future challenges, and the fact that they are very close. In very real terms, our political discussion, our political parties, made little reference to the challenges we face.

Most of the campaign was about "he said, she said" and almost none about policy substance, virtually zero about future challenges. Only the Green party seemed to dip their toes into the future challenges, and then just a tiny bit.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-19/t ... er/8540776

This article poses more questions than answers.

Well worth thinking about. The grievances that our politicians seem to focus on do not get to the heart of the problems.

What should we be looking for from our leaders? What kinds of policies?

At best I have only sketchy ideas, be interesting to hear from others what they think.

[Merry]

I'd like to see less emotion and more technical knowledge applied to decisions about projects such as Site C, the KM pipeline, and LNG. And most politicians aren't really qualified to do that.

We, the Public, are fed a daily diet of opinion (via the MSM) about each of these topics, most of which is not based on technical knowhow or science. And then, based on what we've read, we all jump on "bandwagons" that seem to support our own personal viewpoint, without having all the information we need to be sure we've jumped on the correct "bandwagon". And politicians are no different.

I'm not sure what the answer is; how we find a way to make rational decisions based on facts, rather than emotions and "hearsay", but I think we should at least give it some thought. Because, if we don't find a solution to this problem, the ramifications are enormous, both for our environment and our economic well being.

[hobbyguy]

That's actually where the Green party started to get my interest, and the more I read their platform, the better it got, until I got to energy policy.

Here is just one quote:

"Start measuring the changes in human
conditions that represent genuine progress,
and end the pretence that Gross Domestic
Product (or “GDP”) bears any relation to the
health and wellbeing of British Columbians."

[Queen K]

That's actually where the Green party started to get my interest, and the more I read their platform, the better it got, until I got to energy policy.

Here is just one quote:

"Start measuring the changes in human
conditions that represent genuine progress,
and end the pretence that Gross Domestic
Product (or “GDP”) bears any relation to the
health and wellbeing of British Columbians."

So, in your best estimation, what does even mean?

[Urban Cowboy]

It's political green speak for, people don't need jobs, or a good economy, to be healthy and happy.

GDP is pretty much an indicator of how well a place is doing economically.

[neilsimon]

It's political green speak for, people don't need jobs, or a good economy, to be healthy and happy.

GDP is pretty much an indicator of how well a place is doing economically.

GDP, while serving a purpose, is a poor indicator at best which fails to take account of far too much:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... t-not-even
GDP might be best used for comparing countries as international comparisons are difficult at best, but even then it's just too imprecise and flawed in what it measures.

[hobbyguy]

Agreed.

GDP is most simplistic and silly measurement out there that only gives a bumper sticker answer.

In a simple example:

10 companies make widgets in La-la land. Each company makes 100 widgets at $1,000 each. $1,000.000 GDP. Each company employs 10 people.

There is a shortage of widgets in the market. The price of widgets jumps to $1,250 each. No additional capacity to make widgets has been added, so the GDP of La-La land jumps to $1,250,000 - a whopping 25% growth in GDP. No new jobs have been created, the workers saw no wage increase. BUT the tax revenue from widget sales went up - so the politicians are happy because they did nothing and their budget looks balanced.

Alternately, the widget marketing board now secures a contract to export 1,000 widgets. $950 each for export. The companies appeal to the government and get a tax credit for new equipment so they can meet the orders. They buy new automated widget making machines, which employs 10 extra people during installation - so things look good in the job market for a short while. Once installed, those 10 people are laid off. Once up and running the new widget making machines mean that 4 people can do the job of 10, so 60% of the widget making jobs disappear, with only 4 jobs created in supplying additional materials and transport. So the increase of 10 jobs becomes a loss of 56 jobs. BUT the GDP of La-La land went up by 100% because of the exports and additional materials supplied. Politicians are happy, tax from widget making went up more than the tax credits given - congratulate themselves on how clever they are.

That kind of explains why politicians love GDP as headline number. In both of those cases, GDP went up sharply in La-La land, and government tax revenue went up (more for politicians to spend) - but the average citizen saw no benefit, or got laid off.

This kind of thing makes more sense if you are looking for measures of good governance and really benefiting folks: http://www.prosperity.com/rankings

It is also why when I criticized the NDP for their performance in the 1990s, I did not make the comparisons based on GDP. The criticism were made based on real median incomes (the real income of the the person smack dab in the middle, where half make less, half make more).

Same kind of reasons that I sent a criticizing letter to our local MP regarding Ottawa's latest economic planning notions, it was good for GDP but I felt it was not going to benefit the median income person. (Somewhat surprisingly, I received a response from Bill Morneau's office.)

[hobbyguy]

When I talk about looking forward, and the challenges we face, one of them is demographic.

I saw some talk of improving nursing homes in the election, which is a somewhat reactive position, and wasn't really a big deal. The Greens have improving home care as a minor platform plank, but really never mentioned it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-20/g ... ar/8543848

Cheaper, better outcomes, and certainly an attractive option for seniors wishing to maintain as much independence as possible.