Archive for the ‘solar power’ Category

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

November 12, 2008

Editor: Can it get any more ridiculous?

Ontario is hell bent to close our coal plants and replace them with intermittent wind farms and solar parks – backed up by expensive gas plants.

If you asked someone to design the worst electrical system they could, it would likely be the one described above. The very things you would want to avoid if possible. Expensive and unreliable.

How do you promote an expensive, unreliable electrical system?

Are you stupid? Own a business?

Ontario is the place for you!

Shouldn’t the growers be using renewables like wind and solar? Not if you want your tomatoes.(wind and solar create carbon credits. We need reliable cost effective energy)

Dump the green lobbyists today – Call in the engineers and lets get a system that is cost effective and reliable. I have said this too many times but I will say it once more.

I had a long talk with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and he agreed that the best system for Ontario was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke. 10 billion. Cost effective and as clean as we will get.

The green lobbyists plan-60+ billion (that’s a lot of your taxes wasted) for a system that is more expensive, unreliable and in the end not likely any cleaner than the one the policy adviser would build.

“This is about politics” I was told by the adviser. Well folks – heat your home or greenhouse with politics.

Read the story and if you are not outraged by this govt. – you probably work for them or one of the lobbyists.

.

More growers turn to coal

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

Tyler Hamilton

Energy Reporter

“Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal,” says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. “The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this.”

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It’s estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That’s equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It’s a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What’s preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government’s coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario’s electricity system, calls the situation “perverse” and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

“Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes,” he says.

full story at the Toronto Star

Tyler Hamilton can’t seem to write a story without including Keith Stewart in it. Tyler, go find some engineers. Stewart has a Phd in political science and environment. He is not a energy expert nor is the WWF.

I haven’t read his book but I have read enough “green” policy papers to pretty much know what it says. Green politics does not make an energy expert.

Stewart is a lobbyist for the green movement. Gerald Butts the ex-principal Secretary for McGuinty is now with the WWF. Robert Hornung of CanWEA and the Pembina Institute along with his friend David Suzuki are all involved in pressuring the govt. to adopt their policies and in the process are doing great harm to this Province and Canada.

None of these people are employed by the govt. nor are they elected and I don’t believe any of them are engineers.

They are promoters of a massive fraud that goes by the name of “Man Made Global Warming”.

So butt the fuck out of our electrical system.

If you don’t like Canada – go join your mentor Maurice Strong in China. They use lots of coal there. Go bother the Chinese

If any of you mentioned above would like to enter into an open debate, or have a comment-I’m available.

Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants

Premier, Dalton McGuinty powers a press conference with wind energy



How NOT to Have Electricity

August 16, 2008

by Alan Caruba

Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.

Electricity is so commonplace that no one gives any thought to not having access to it. Few give any consideration to how it is generated, but we are now being inundated with the most virulent nonsense about how wind or solar power is “clean” and practically “free.” Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.

The problem for everyone who wants to get rich with these energy sources or those who think they are the answer to our energy needs is that neither wind, nor solar can ever power anything more than relatively small projects like a farm or a local stadium. A nation of more than three hundred million people, however, needs a lot of generation capacity.

All the razzle-dazzle of television advertising and public relations propaganda cannot justify the building of massive wind or solar farms. They are simply inadequate to the production of the electricity the nation requires now and in the future. The weird thing about T. Boone Pickens’ pitch is that he talks about oil dependency to justify wind power, but vehicles are not powered by wind. Nor are they likely to be powered by liquified natural gas as Pickens suggests.

By contrast, the July edition of Energy Tribune devoted some of its pages to the comeback of nuclear power in America. What jumped out at me was co-editor Robert Bryce’s citation of the fact that, “The U.S. government has spent some $7 billion building a repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has declared that it “is never going to open” and is “not the answer to nuclear waste storage.”

Senator Reid recently said that, “Coal is making us sick. Oil is making us sick,” and then went on to blather insanely about global warming.

According to Bryce, “On June 3, the Department of Energy submitted an 8,600-page application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking approval of the Yucca Mountain site for waste storage. Just one day later, Nevada urged the agency to reject the application.” This is a glaring example of how to make sure America lacks the electrical energy it needs.

Throughout the debate over energy use, the Big Lie has been that industrial and other activities generate carbon dioxide emissions that, in turn, are causing global warming. Ergo, we have to radically alter every aspect of modern life to avoid the Earth’s destruction.

The problem with that is a decade-old cooling period that the Earth entered in 1998 and which is getting colder, not warmer. The other problem is the fact that the Earth has passed through periods in which the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere were much higher than they are today.

Since it is getting colder, we are going to need more electricity and other sources of energy to keep us warm in our homes, offices, schools, et cetera. We are going to have to burn coal, currently the major source of power, to generate electricity as well as the cheapest and most abundant. We will continue to use natural gas as well. All the hydroelectric sources have been identified and are in use at present.

That leaves nuclear. An Energy Tribune article by William E. Burchill serves up lots of information about the nuclear production of electrical energy. Worldwide, 441 nuclear reactors are providing electricity to one billion people. Presently nuclear power provides twenty percent of America’s electricity needs, thanks to the 104 nuclear plants operating in the U.S.

Here’s something to keep in mind. “No U.S. plant worker or member of the public has ever been injured or killed by an accident caused by nuclear power.” Moreover, amidst the frenzy over CO2, nuclear is “an emissions-free source of electricity.”

Continue reading article

EU industry sees emissions rise

April 2, 2008
Editor:
There are only two ways to lower C02 emissions. Build nuclear or shut down heavy industry.
I predict that both will happen. Because China and India are not subject to Kyoto and they have low labour costs, you will see heavy industry move to those countries. The EU will be forced to build nuclear or pay high carbon emission taxes. All the wind farms and solar panels in the world will not power heavy industry. You can wish and hope all you want but in the final analysis it takes ‘real power’ to run heavy industry.

.

EU industry sees emissions rise

By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News

PA)

Power generation was the only sector to exceed its emissions limit

Carbon dioxide emissions from Europe’s heavy industry sectors rose by 1.1% in 2007, say carbon market analysts.

The estimate is based on initial data from the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which includes more than 10,000 large industrial plants.

Environmentalists say it shows that the scheme, the EU’s main mechanism to meet its Kyoto target, is not working.

But market watchers say the ETS, in the long term, will help deliver the EU goal of cutting emissions by 20%.

“The main thing we have seen from the data released today, although incomplete, is that emissions are up from 2006 to 2007 by about 1.1%,” explained Henrik Hasselknipp, senior analyst for Point Carbon, a research company.

He added that initial analysis of the data also showed that only a few countries’ emissions had exceeded their national limit.

Get the level of cap wrong and, as we saw in Phase One of the ETS, the carbon price could drop to very low, potentially unworkable, levels
Robert Casamento,
Ernst & Young

Most notable was the UK, he said, which went over its allocation by about 85m tonnes for the three-year period between 2005 and 2007.

He suggested that power generators in the UK, Italy and Spain were the only sectors that had exceeded their allowances.

From the BBC

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

March 13, 2008

 Editor
The Global Green Agenda site is probably the best place on the internet to easily understand what the Green Movement is about.

This is not fiction. Go to the site, spend time there, read and study what you read. This site will and should scare the hell out of you.

From now on every time you hear the word sustainability or a reference to it, the hair on the back of your neck will stand up.

Wind farms, large scale solar and biofuel are being used to trash economies not save the world from so called global warming.
I wonder if George Orwell had inside information before he wrote 1984.

Building an environmentally sustainable future
requires nothing short of a REVOLUTION…
restructuring the GLOBAL ECONOMY,
dramatically changing human reproductive
behaviour
and altering values and lifestyles.”
– Lester Brown,
President of the WorldWatch Institute

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Sustainable Development, as outlined in Agenda 21 and the subsequent Earth Charter, is the driving force behind what Al Gore calls a “wrenching transformation” that society must endure to repair what he perceives as the damage of the 20th century’s Industrial Revolution. It is the same Industrial Revolution that gave us modern transportation, medicine, indoor plumbing, healthy drinking water, central heating, air conditioning, and electric light. Sustainable Development is not about environmental clean up of rivers, air and litter. It is an all-encompassing socialist scheme to combine social welfare programs with government control of private business, socialized medicine, national zoning controls of private property and restructuring of school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.

Immediately following the publication of Brundtland Commission report and the Earth summit many governments swiftly enacted draconian legislation to empower the Sustainable Development doctrine. This followed a common formula of establishing regional or federal authorities that were given sweeping powers to control activities on private property. In Europe nearly every imaginable activity, no matter how benign, now requires and environmental impact assessment to be submitted to a committee which then imposes its own controls on the proposed activity. The UN regularly audits member countries and reports on their progress in implementing Agenda 21.

The primary tools used by the UN to force governments to implement its Sustainable Development agenda have been The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank states that Sustainable Development is its “global strategic priority” and all government loans are tagged with the requirement to introduce approved environmental legislation and strict monitoring. Even if repayments are met these loans can be foreclosed if the environmental targets are not met within the required timeframe.

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore insists “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundation of our civilization. We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.” Sustainable Development advocates seek oppressive taxes to control and punish behavior of which they don’t approve and there is much these advocates disapprove, including air conditioning, fast foods, suburban housing and automobiles. Every aspect of our lives is affected by Sustainable Development policies. It is top-down control from an all-powerful central government, specifically the United Nations which seeks to assert such control.

The philosophy behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people over the use of natural resources. Every time one starts their car… every time one turns on the tap… remember, be sustainable! Don’t exceed your allotment of resources…. We all must learn to live the same, think the same and most importantly… be sustainable! We are encouraged to calculate our ‘ecological footprint’, or more recently, our ‘carbon footprint’. Using a humble incandescent light bulb is now considered a crime against the planet by some.

Global Green Agenda 

It's green fever madness!

February 24, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

It’s green fever madness!

Only a politician would try and sell you on the idea that more taxes can save the planet

There was a time that when politicians raised taxes, they called it what it was: Raising taxes.They didn’t, at least not with a straight face, make grandiose claims that raising taxes was all part of their plan to save the planet and kickstart a “social movement” into being.But that was before green fever madness gripped our politicians.

It was in the throes of that condition last week that B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor actually claimed, with a straight face, that her province’s imposition of Canada’s first carbon tax (a tax on fossil fuels) could be the start of a new “social movement” across the country.

For gawd’s sake, let’s hope not.
Because that “social movement” is designed to hoodwink taxpayers into believing they no longer have the right to complain about our usuriously high taxes, lest they be shamed into silence by the Suzuki Nation as global warming “deniers.”

This madness would be laughable, if it wasn’t happening right before our eyes.

* In B.C., where charging people more for gas and heat by Premier Gordon Campbell’s government, part of a tax shell game we’re assured will be “revenue neutral” (no comment), is praised by the politician doing it as courageous and revolutionary, while mesmerized media pundits, having forgotten the story about the emperor having no clothes, mindlessly repeat the mantra.

* In Ontario, where Premier Dalton McGuinty is paying outrageously high prices, using tax money, for very little solar power, instead of doing something that would help the environment — cleaning up the air pollution spewing out of the province’s coal-fired energy plants, the same ones he promised five years ago to close by last year, and now won’t close, or even clean up, for six more.

* In Quebec, where consumers are being told by their government, with a straight face, that there’s nothing it can do to stop a new “green” tax intended to target oil and gas industry profits, from being passed along to them. Gee, how about not imposing the !@$@?! tax in the first place?

* And finally in crazytown … Ottawa … where, amongst so many other absurdities on the environmental front, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, a man who can’t control his caucus, has a plan to control the climate.

In the real world, if you understand the first thing about man-made global warming, Canada’s relatively minor contribution to it, and what a cluster muck the Kyoto Accord is, all of these things are beyond farcical.

Actually, they’re entering Twilight Zone territory.

Here’s another absurdity courtesy of our hysterical politicians, as they shamelessly don green shoes, sport green ties and name their dog “Kyoto” to convince us of their environmental “street cred.” (You can’t make this !@$# up.)

Years ago, governments used to do a thing called “capital spending.” It wasn’t glamourous, but it was important — stuff like buying garbage trucks, police cruisers, ambulances, buses and building subways, highways, hospitals, schools.

But today, whenever governments buy a garbage truck, or some new garbage bins, or a garbage dump, or some new buses, or promise us another subway to nowhere (a Toronto specialty), or raise gasoline taxes, in exactly the same way they’ve been doing it for decades, we’re supposed to believe it’s all part of their big “green” plan to save the planet from global warming. It’s utter nonsense.

Finally, have you noticed how politicians have suddenly stopped talking about the outrageously high gasoline prices we’re paying — something you couldn’t shut them up about for decades — although of course they never did anything about it?

POLS CAN’T COMPLAIN

Problem is, politicians can’t complain about high gas prices now that they’re all thinking of raising them higher, ostensibly as part of their “green” plan to prevent a 20-foot rise in sea levels from wiping out Newfoundland.

It’s as if we all went to sleep one night and woke up in the Oceania of George Orwell’s 1984, where, instead of telling us on Monday that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia and on Tuesday that we’ve always been at war with Eurasia, now on Monday its: “High gas prices bad” and on Tuesday: “High gas prices good.”

I can hardly wait for the Two-Minute Hate and the free Doublethink classes.

 



• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca

GLOBAL WARMING??

September 6, 2007

Category: News and Politics

NASA recently revised their list of the ten hottest years on record. The unrevised list was cited by Al Gore in his film “An Inconvienent Truth,” where he assured us that the ten hottest years on Earth have all occured since 1995. The new, CORRECT list released by NASA (which is where all official whether data comes from) is as follows:

Ten Hottest Years on Earth (starting with the hottest):

1. 1934

2. 1998

3. 1921

4. 2006

5. 1931

6. 1999

7. 1953

8. 1990

9. 1938

10. 1939

Also, NASA also announced that the Earth’s average tempurture has DROPPED by 0.15 degrees celsus. That’s right people, the globe has been cooling for the last 7 years. That is if you believe NASA.

Oh, and about the Polar Ice Caps that have been melting for the last 10 years…recent data reveals that the ice caps have actually THICKENED by a minimal amount over the last decade. It’s funny how that story didn’t make it onto the national news.

And just so everyone who wasn’t alive back then is informed, in the 1970’s there was widespread panic throughout the world because “scientific evidence” suggested the Earth was about to enter another Ice Age. Seriously, ask your parents.

Thanks to Tina for this visit her blog

Environmentalists want clotheslines ban lifted

July 29, 2007

From the Editor

As soon as Dalton figures out how his corporate buddies can make money by allowing people to hang out the laundry he will lift the ban. Until then keep using those dryers. If stories like this weren’t so outrageous they would make me laugh. Oct 1oth send McGuinty his pink slip. I was a Liberal until Uncle Dalton came along. We’ve had some lame premiers but this guy takes the cake.


Canadian press

It’s a simple, functional part of the solution to Canada’s energy addiction: allowing people to hang their sheets, T-shirts and undies outside to dry.

So why, then, is the simple, time-tested concept of the clothesline conjuring such cross-country controversy?

Sure, the sight of a hefty neighbour’s boxers fluttering in the breeze might turn some stomachs – indeed, that’s the main reason some communities draw the line at air-dried laundry.

In Ontario, however, a growing number of environmentalists and municipal politicians are calling on the government to override local clothesline bans – something it could do with the stroke of a pen.

Many are now wondering why the province appears to be dragging its heels on measures that would allow people to harness free solar and wind energy by hanging their clothes out to dry.

This is not a draconian measure,” Stewart said. “It’s not like laundry is a threat to the morals of our youth. All it’s saying is people are allowed to use a clothesline.” The Liberals passed an energy conservation leadership law shortly after their election in 2003 that included a clause that allows the province to abolish local bans on clotheslines imposed by developers through sale agreements and residential associations.

But the Liberals have never taken advantage of the clause, meaning it remains against the law in some aesthetically-minded communities to let unmentionables flap immodestly in the breeze.

It doesn’t make sense at a time when everyone is being urged to change their habits to cut greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy during a hot summer, Stewart said.

“It really is very silly,” he said. “This isn’t a huge thing but it’s incredibly easy to do. It’s not like they need a mandate from the electorate to do this. They could do it tomorrow.”

Environment Minister Laurel Broten would only say Wednesday that lifting a ban on clotheslines doesn’t fall under her jurisdiction.

Phyllis Morris is at the forefront of the “right to dry” movement in Ontario. The mayor of Aurora, a suburban city just north of Toronto, has been on talk shows across the country lobbying for the right to “free the sheets.” Ironically, Morris recently had a Liberal government pamphlet delivered to her door urging her to do a number of things to help the environment – including air-drying clothes.

“I wonder what they’re waiting for,” Morris said about lifting the ban.

“We see it as a freedom of choice issue. I’m not saying people should hang their laundry outside – I’m saying shouldn’t they be able to if they want to?”

“Most people who would choose to do the environmentally sound thing would also be probably concerned for their neighbours,” she said.

“If their neighbours are having a barbecue, get your laundry in before 5 o’clock when they sit down to eat supper. That’s just being a good neighbour.”

“There is much greater public awareness that wasting energy is bad for our future. Clotheslines will soon have social cache as people who do the right thing . . . and the law will hurry along to catch up.” New Democrat Paul Ferreira said by lagging behind public consciousness, the Liberals are leaving green-minded residents “out to dry.”

“When we talk about harnessing wind power and solar power to meet our daily needs, here’s a classic example of how to do it.”

Tell your Liberal MPP what you think.Full Story