Carbon Tax, Regulations, or What?

[erinmore3775]

HG, I agree with you that electrical energy in Europe costs more than in North America and if you do a little research you will also find that since the end of WW II that has always been the case. This was particularly the case for petroleum products. The current differential cannot be blamed on the use of alternative energy sources.
The point of examining ACT was to compare it to the use of a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade as a method to reduce GHG. It would seem from your arguments that that you are not in favour of any enegy source that is not carbon based or hydro electric. Perhaps you would like to comment on how you propose that Canada meet its Paris Accord GHG projections.

[Jflem1983]

HG, I agree with you that electrical energy in Europe costs more than in North America and if you do a little research you will also find that since the end of WW II that has always been the case. This was particularly the case for petroleum products. The current differential cannot be blamed on the use of alternative energy sources.
The point of examining ACT was to compare it to the use of a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade as a method to reduce GHG. It would seem from your arguments that that you are not in favour of any enegy source that is not carbon based or hydro electric. Perhaps you would like to comment on how you propose that Canada meet its Paris Accord GHG projections.

We should grow some balls and walk away from Paris

[hobbyguy]

HG, I agree with you that electrical energy in Europe costs more than in North America and if you do a little research you will also find that since the end of WW II that has always been the case. This was particularly the case for petroleum products. The current differential cannot be blamed on the use of alternative energy sources.
The point of examining ACT was to compare it to the use of a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade as a method to reduce GHG. It would seem from your arguments that that you are not in favour of any enegy source that is not carbon based or hydro electric. Perhaps you would like to comment on how you propose that Canada meet its Paris Accord GHG projections.

Canada is already 60% renewable through hydroelectric, plus 15% nuclear = 75% non fossil fuel electricity production.

The Paris accord does not concern me. What concerns me is a sustainable future with a good standard of living for Canadians.

That means affordable and reliable electricity and energy sources as we wean off fossil fuels over the next 3-4 decades. Lots and lots of it. The kiddie toys of wind and solar are merely a distraction in the context of real world energy needs. Enhanced geothermal has potential as another possible source, but I fear the environmental footprint is too large, and that the problems with induced seismicity will prove intractable.

That leaves us with nuclear and hydropower. Hydropower is largely out of the question as the environmental costs of damming more rivers is too high. Nuclear, on the other hand, has the smallest environmental footprint per MW, and also happens to be in the affordable range (at the upper end, but affordable).

The scenario I envision is most likely to be:

Nuclear plants running 24/7 full out to optimize ROI and keep costs down. During off peak times, either being used to carbon capture from the atmosphere/produce synthetic gasoline or producing hydrogen. That solves a good chunk of the transportation puzzle - especially if the transportation focus is jointly on mass transit where feasible. There are technical problems to be resolved in that, but we are close thanks to investments by people like Bill Gates.

Jointly developed national building standards to dramatically improve home heating efficiency. That will take time to roll over, but my guess is that 3D printed homes could both be more economic and far more energy efficient than current building methods.

Yes, in certain places/contexts a little bit of wind/solar will help... say in places like Haida Gwaii, but the contribution will be minor.

We need to get going in a direction that will actually work in the real world. Nuclear combined with carbon capture from the atmosphere and hydrogen are practical things that will work in a wide diversity of contexts and have application in rural areas - doing so with the minimum environmental footprint.

Am I sure that will work? Heck no. But I do know that the windy/solar nonsense is just that, and leaves us with few viable options. Canada has lots of uranium, and if it can be made to work, thorium. We also have decent expertise in the nuclear field. Time to get a goin'!

[erinmore3775]

HG, we agree on more on how to achieve energy stability, in an environmentally friendly manner than we disagree upon. Unfortunately, Canadians in general do not totally support our positions. A majority of Canadians support Canada's position on the Paris Accord and the necessity of reducing GHG. However, unlike their European counterparts, they have an aversion to nuclear power. They base their opinions on safety concerns, the lack of a clear and long term nuclear waste storage plan, and the problems and high costs related to the mismanagement of the Darlington nuclear reactors.

Canadians have a clear preference for solar, tidal, and wind generation over nuclear power generation. While this preference is somewhat irrational, it affects the way Canada will address its future energy requirements. Most Canadians would rather have hectares of solar panels or windmills near their community than a nuclear reactor. Since all new large energy producing projects need to go through substantial environmental and public scrutiny, the nuclear option is probably not a possibility in most provinces.

You and I agree that the stability of Canadian energy production is paramount. Europe and especially Germany has demonstrated that an integrated and stable non-synchronous and synchronous energy grid is possible and it is reliable. They have demonstrated that wind and solar energy generation can be a significant part of their energy generation picture. Will nuclear become a major contributor to the Canadian energy picture outside of the existing plants in the province of Ontario? I do not believe that will occur. The publicity around nuclear power plant accidents like the Fukushima/Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961) paint a picture of accidents that involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work. The pictures of the still quarantined area Chernobyl continue to fascinate and bias the public.

I would hope that Canadians would see that technical advances in carbon capture, development and integration of synchronous and non-synchronous energy production, and regulation and conservation are the ways to proceed. Will this increase the costs of energy? Yes, but probably less in Canada than any other place in the world.

[hobbyguy]

Canadians atm do have a preference for wind and solar until they try it. I believe the tide has turned on that in Ontario, where all the propaganda and nonsense about wind and solar put out by the paid phony green industry ran headlong into reality.

Wind and solar are things that can be made to sound warm and fuzzy, but the reality is that the bulk of wind and solar development is destructive to future energy supplies, has too large an environmental footprint, and is really nothing more than a massive "subsidy mining" operation by hedge funds. Even Warren Buffet admits, despite being heavily involved in wind energy, that it is only the subsidies that prompts his interest.

Canada can not afford such a bunch o nonsense. Folks are waking up to it. That's also why the phony green advocacy industry is anti-nuclear, despite advance that make nuclear very safe, and anti-hydroelectric. IF you build hydro and nuclear plants will last 50-100 years - who needs silly solar panels and wind toys that are toast in 20? Plus wind and solar electricity costs more delivered to your door.

The wind and solar stuff is a gigantic scam.

[Jlabute]

That means affordable and reliable electricity and energy sources as we wean off fossil fuels over the next 3-4 decades. Lots and lots of it. The kiddie toys of wind and solar are merely a distraction in the context of real world energy needs. Enhanced geothermal has potential as another possible source, but I fear the environmental footprint is too large, and that the problems with induced seismicity will prove intractable.

^^^ couldn't agree more. I've always called wind and solar kiddie power. Industrial, reliable, and secure energy sources are needed for energy independence. What bothers me about wind and solar, is by the time they contribute the tiniest fraction of the worlds energy supply after spending countless trillions of dollars for something that has a speck of a lifespan, we will have the next solution readily available such as MSR, obsoleting tons of solar and wind junk yards. Monies that could have been spent expediting real energy. I've seen solar arrays pelted by large hail, lots of wind turbines blown all to bits, and recently, two maintenance workers who fried to death in a wind turbine. Such an enormous waste. Let energy evolve naturally, it always has. When MSR is ready to power the world, CO2 is marginally higher as a trace gas and makes no difference.

Yes, in certain places/contexts a little bit of wind/solar will help... say in places like Haida Gwaii, but the contribution will be minor.

The Moon, Mars, etc.

Far in the future if a dam ever needs to be replaced, it will be done with an MSR, not wind or solar, and land will be recovered. The less reliance on battery technology the better. The less you have to build to micromanage power everywhere, the better.

[Jlabute]

I could be wrong, but I feel as though Solar and Wind are technologies that poor countries adopt while rich countries invest in to better technologies. Countries that have lost hope in the future, buy in to Wind and Solar.

[Merry]

Despite the down sides of HEP, I still prefer that to nuclear. Erinmore is right when he says that the lack of suitable storage for nuclear waste is an issue for most folks.

[Jlabute]

The advantage of MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) is the amount of waste is extremely tiny, plus it allows you to recycle old nuclear waste. There is enough thorium to fuel us for millions of years until we find the next greatest thing. Nuclear components generated are critical for health care, etc. New nuclear technology is a win-win.

https://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past

http://egeneration.org/solution/wamsr/

[hobbyguy]

Despite the down sides of HEP, I still prefer that to nuclear. Erinmore is right when he says that the lack of suitable storage for nuclear waste is an issue for most folks.

Ummm... you need to catch up on the technology. The newer generations of nuclear reactors can be set up so that there just isn't that problem. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/leslie-dewan-explorer-moments-nuclear-energy/ and there are also reprocessing plants to take spent fuel rods and turn them back into usable fuel.. https://www.reuters.com/article/china-france-areva/update-1-frances-areva-signs-china-nuclear-facility-pact-still-awaits-contract-idUSL8N1P43NC

The industry is proceeding on the basis that there never will be enough storage to just dump spent fuel rods, and that it isn't responsible anyway.

Once again we are comparing the old designs of the late 1960s (Maxwell Smart phones) with today's technology (iPhone X).

However, there will be a need for some repositories. The problem is that despite careful design and testing, the phony green propaganda industry gins up hysteria and nimbyism so that proper waste storage does NOT get built - not out of genuine concern and factual basis, but to further their twisted paid for anarchist/Luddite agenda.

The choices are simple enough when you consider them. China is building roughly 60 new reactors. That should bring them to roughly 500 TWh. The world's entire installed solar capacity is roughly 6 TWh and the entire world's wind electricity is roughly 450 TWh.

So 60 reactors is something you can envision in terms of impact on the landscape. Not insignificant, but not a huge impact either. Both nuclear and windy/solar stuff have upstream impacts, and they are likely to be the same or more for wind and solar.

341,000 spinning wind turbines being ugly and exerting a ton of environmental footprint. Over a million solar installations in the US alone, chewing up land and disrupting the environment. Downstream in electricity grids, wind and solar are an unmitigated disaster, requiring massive further investments and infrastructure footprints to stabilize supply.

Which makes more sense from the perspective of preserving the environment? Hmm... 60 nuclear plants or 100,000s of thousands of wind turbine and millions of solar panels?

Sorry, I will go with the nuclear plants every time. They also last 3-5 times as long as the windy-solar stuff, so the upstream costs of wind and solar just keep coming around to bite us. France is 75% nuclear power. Very, very few accidents, and none catastrophic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

"Unlike its neighboring countries of Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, France does not rely very much on fossil fuels and biomass for electricity or home heating thanks to an abundance of cheap nuclear power. Taken as a whole, the country therefore has superior air quality[97][98][99] and lower pollution related deaths.[100][101] Air pollution in France largely comes from cars and a minority is carried by the wind from Germany.[102][103][104] Each year, the coal fired power stations in Germany are the cause of a calculated 1,860 premature domestic deaths and approximately 2,500 deaths abroad.[105]

Outdoor fossil fuel and biomass pollution, from particulate matter alone, kill more people than is popularly know, approximately 1 million people every year according to the World Health Organization.[106] The level of atmospheric particulate matter, small enough to enter and cause damage to the lungs –is 13 micrograms per cubic metre in France,[107] cleaner than the air in Germany, where the particulate air pollution is higher at 16 micrograms per cubic metre.[108] "

[Jflem1983]

Why should average Canadians be paying for stupid decisions. Let markets decide. If people want to buy coal they will. If they want to buy solar they will. Compete or die.

[hobbyguy]

Why should average Canadians be paying for stupid decisions. Let markets decide. If people want to buy coal they will. If they want to buy solar they will. Compete or die.

Markets are not always the answer. There used to be a very good market (legal) for Laudanum. People liked it and bought it. I don't think either of us would quibble with the notion that the government banned its sale.

Fossil fuels are finite, and they cause all kinds of health problems - that you as a taxpayer wind up footing the bill for. Eventually we have to get away from them.

[erinmore3775]

New nuclear reactors and nuclear reprocessing plants are horrendously expensive and on the cutting edge of technology. There are safety issues and problems at the world’s largest nuclear recycling plant, Areva Nuclear at La Hague in France.[1] Following the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster; supply of radioactive rods to be recycled has virtually dried up. Only French Nuclear remains as its main customer.2 People are reluctant to ship the rods because of the possibility of an accident. While the recycling technology exists, can you imagine the Canadian protests of shipping nuclear material to be recycled by rail or truck to a central recycling plant? It is definitely not an option I would like to consider as an elected politician. Another obstacle is the high cost of building and maintaining such plants.[2]

You are correct that Terrestrial Energy of Ontario, with its Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR). This power plant generates 400 megawatts of thermal energy (190 MW electric) using a replaceable seal liquid sodium reactor core. The core has a life expectancy of 7 years.[3] Now, picture the problems related to trucking your replacement core, from the factory to the reactor every seven years.

If Canada was to meet its additional electrical energy requirements over the next 50 years using this type of technology (the best currently available) it would mean hundreds of these plants located across Canada. Unfortunately, they would not be centralized around a mother plant. Given a choice between solar and wing and IMSR technology for future electrical generation, which one do you think Canadians would choose?

I would suggest that the best way to proceed is to use the monies generated by a Carbon Tax or other environmental levies to expand Canada’s electrical power production through solar and wind projects. To oppose that choice because of what has occurred with Hydro One means that the opposition has not studied the causes of the high cost of electricity in Ontario. The reasons are simple. They include the high cost of nuclear reactor repairs, the debt associated with the building and repair of the reactors, and the cost of closing gas fired generators. [4,5,6]

The Globe and Mail article provides a blueprint outline of everything they did wrong and how those errors affected the costs and debt load.[6] However, the best analysis of the problems related to Ontario electrical energy production can be found in the article below.

https://gncc.ca/electricity-ontario-part-2-problem/?

The author does have a bias in support of nuclear energy, but does clearly demonstrate that most of the problems with the costs can be laid at the feet of politicians. The article provides analysis that can and should be applied to how we deal with the necessity of increasing electrical energy production in the future.

In BC, nuclear may be the “best” option that cannot be applied. Candu reactors need large amounts of cooling fresh water. IMSR has a problem with high pressure/high temperature corrosion of the reactor containment vessel. [7] This is why Terrestial Energy is recommending a lifespan of seven years for their compact reactor. I just do not see nuclear getting environmental approval in BC. The alternative is solar/wind generation. Germany has successful integrated synchronous and non-synchronous energy producers into their energy grid with a reliability that is over 99%.[8,9,11] While it would be a great have the intellectual debate of nuclear vs solar/wind, it would not answer the essential question of how to pay for the electrical production facilities needed for economic development over the next 30 years.

I continue to believe in the measures that I suggested at the beginning of this forum offer the best method to finance these needed energy projects. What I find curious and alarming is the fact that the current provincial government no longer wishes to make the current carbon tax revenue neutral. They also will provide no information about how much money is raised by the tax, how the money is applied in the budget, or how much or in what ways the money is returned to taxpayers. What we do know is that carbon tax money is not used for energy development re-investment.10

Now that I have finished my grey matter gymnastics in a futile effort to fend off cerebral collapse, I am going to go and make a pasta salad and ensure that some Okanagan based cold ones are in the refrigerator. Vacations are hard work!


1. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-areva- ... ant-2017-3
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fran ... CY20150506
3. https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/techn ... -it-works/
4. https://www.canadianconsultingengineer. ... -problems/
5. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/scientist ... -1.2754272
6. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e33453270/
7. http://www.cnl.ca/site/media/Parent/Ort ... ITMSR4.pdf
8. https://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electr ... rmany.html
9. https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm ... &year=2018
10. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/economi ... rent-path/
11. http://energypost.eu/how-german-energie ... s-the-way/

[hobbyguy]

Point blank: Canada can NOT afford to fall into the wind and solar scam. It is nothing more than a subsidy mining operation by the likes of Elon Musk et al.

The fundamental physics of energy are clear, wind and solar are weak and poor choices. Add in the intermittency of supply, and the huge cost of associated infrastructure to deal with that, and you have a horribly expensive mess that creates massive inequality and energy poverty.

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/12/02/guilty-subsidised-wind-solar-drive-australias-rocketing-retail-power-prices/

Think about it - what happens to folks in a cold country like Canada if they are reliant on electricity at $.47 /kWh or more? They freeze in the dark or they starve. Bear in mind that in the above article we are talking about Australia, where solar is more efficient than in Canada.

Denying the reality that wind and solar are not a viable option is every bit as bad as denying that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Both are untenable positions in the real world context.

[hobbyguy]

Erinmore - if you think nuclear investments are expensive, then consider this:

Germany alone will have spent at least USD 1.25 Trillion in wind and solar subsidies by 2040. https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/global-investment-renewable-energy-stalled-due-subsidy-cuts/

"Europe invested $850 billion dollars in renewables between 2000 and 2014. In 2010 and 2011, Europe’s investment in renewable energy was more than $100 billion, tapering to $57.4 billion in 2017—down 50 percent from the record years of 2010 and 2011. These investments were spurred by feed-in tariffs and other subsidies. For example, German consumers pay an EEG levy in their electric bills, totaling €25 billion ($31 billion) a year. It is estimated that by 2040, cumulative renewable subsidies paid by German consumers will reach one trillion euros ($1.25 trillion)."

By 2040, virtually ALL of the wind and solar installations currently operating in Europe will be toast - finito - burned out junk. (Canada's Pickering nuclear plant was completed in 1973 - and is still operating!) What will Europe do then? More subsidies???

So a nuclear plant of about 1,100 MW capacity costs roughly USD 11 billion. 1.25 trillion divided by 11 billion = 113 or 114 such nuclear plants that Germany alone could have built. On that scale, the costs would likely be lower, but... Those nuclear plants would operate 24/7 - thus avoiding the huge hidden costs in wind and solar of the infrastructure investments needed to stabilize the grid (Elon Musk's silly batteries included). Not only that but those nuclear plants would still be operating out into 2060 and beyond... long after the wind turbines have burnt out and the solar panels have returned to dust.

The ONLY reason that Germany - and the rest - have turned to wind and solar is because politicians don't have the guts to stand up to the tsunami of dark money induced phony green propaganda pumped out by paid propaganda and paid agitator companies like Greenpeace.

We can do better!