babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

green power

ebodyknows
Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2008

anyone know about the bull frog power company.  Is it really a more environmental choice?


Comments

George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

You pay more to promote "green" sources like wind and solar and "low-impact" hydro.  I would join up if that included nuclear.

 

"The wind project from which Bullfrog sources in BC, like all new renewable energy projects, requires a premium over conventional market prices for electricity in order to make it economic. In this particular case, the developers counted on getting a premium for the green power produced by the facility, over and above BC Hydro rates. As a result, Bullfrog's contracts are financially important to renewable power developers to help support new projects such as the Bear Mountain Wind Park. As the developer has stated, "payments from voluntary consumers assist in the proliferation of green power development".

Bullfrog Power and its customers play an important role in enabling new renewable power to be developed in Canada. Bullfrog has created both a residential and commercial market for green power in Canada by educating home owners and businesses on the environmental benefits of green power, and by providing them with a convenient and easy market mechanism for choosing green. Voluntary consumer demand can and is playing an important role in the development of new renewable power projects. Across the country, several new wind farms have been commissioned in response to the growing voluntary demand for green power. And as our customer base continues to grow, we will continue to help bring new renewable power projects online. For information on these new projects, please visit: http://www.bullfrogpower.com/clean/newprojects.cfm. In short, bullfrogpowered homes support renewable energy generation, and the more voluntary consumers there are, the more wind projects can be built.

With regard to how our power is delivered, Bullfrog does not pipe green electrons directly to its customers' homes or businesses. The green power is injected onto the existing grid. This makes both environmental and economic sense, in that the environmental benefits of green power accrue at the point of generation, not the point of consumption, and to develop a separate grid infrastructure for delivery of green power would take an unnecessary environmental and economic toll. Most would agree, we believe, that greening our existing grid is the most effective way to move to a cleaner energy future.

Finally, BC imports more electricity that you might think. For a breakdown of where the electricity is imported from and the pollution that results, see our BC Emissions Calculator.

Ron Seftel
SVP, Operations
Bullfrog Power


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

George Victor wrote:

You pay more to promote "green" sources like wind and solar and "low-impact" hydro.  I would join up if that included nuclear.

 

I'd discontinue my participation if it included nuclear.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

I know.  It's all a matter of what we believe we can live with while making a living in a world that demands competitive power costs and a relatively emissions-free energy source.

I respect your position, Policywonk. Very much. But we are on different paths regarding the possibilities of the average person being able to live on ideals alone... in very competitive, hard, economic circumstances.  Unless you can reassure the marginals on this score, somehow?

It's all very much easier if you have it "made in the shade," financially.


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

George Victor wrote:

I know.  It's all a matter of what we believe we can live with while making a living in a world that demands competitive power costs and a relatively emissions-free energy source.

I respect your position, Policywonk. Very much. But we are on different paths regarding the possibilities of the average person being able to live on ideals alone... in very competitive, hard, economic circumstances.  Unless you can reassure the marginals on this score, somehow?

It's all very much easier if you have it "made in the shade," financially.

It's also a question of whether it actually is a relatively-emissions free energy source (as compared to what?). Of course you have to apply a full life cycle analysis in the comparison. I think we can agree to disagree about ideals and reality.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

If nuclear does not provide energy without lower carbon emissions, while providing that necessary base power load on the grid, I'm open to enlightenment.

And if you can show Ontario industry how to compete with an already elevated petro-loonie and now a coal-free electrical system (against the "reality" of U.S., coal driven power producers) , again, I stand to be corrected.

The reality is that low-skill industrial work is history, here in Ontario, and you know which social strata, which demographic, is affected. Perhaps you had another reality in mind.


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

BC imports hydro because we export power and have to continue under NAFTA, and that goes for importing too.


ebodyknows
Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2008

George Victor wrote:

If nuclear does not provide energy without lower carbon emissions, while providing that necessary base power load on the grid, I'm open to enlightenment.

 

Is lower carbon emissions the only factor to consider when rating the 'greenness' of an energy source?


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

remind wrote:

BC imports hydro because we export power and have to continue under NAFTA, and that goes for importing too.

http://www.sqwalk.com/bc2009/001560.html

The above is simply wrong.


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

George Victor wrote:

If nuclear does not provide energy without lower carbon emissions, while providing that necessary base power load on the grid, I'm open to enlightenment.

And if you can show Ontario industry how to compete with an already elevated petro-loonie and now a coal-free electrical system (against the "reality" of U.S., coal driven power producers) , again, I stand to be corrected.

The reality is that low-skill industrial work is history, here in Ontario, and you know which social strata, which demographic, is affected. Perhaps you had another reality in mind.

The discussion occurred in an earlier thread on both the carbon intensity of nuclear and base-power loads with respect to renewable energy, and I don't believe you were open to the arguments then, so there is no expectation you would be now. There are many aspects of reality.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

I didnt see the earlier discussions.

But there are many ways to cut the base-power load question. But to pretend that it boils down to a couple of choices is not acceptable.

Storage, de-centralization, and distributed generation are treated as if they are pie in the sky solutions. But making them work here and now is no more expensive than increasing nuclear power generation.

Their problem is not wih technology, or even applying. Their problem is with incentive systems. Increased nuclear and other totally centralized solutions plug right into who owns and who profits right now. The more decentralized and diffused solutions to base-power loads require the active participation of governments in the market. That doesnt have to mean government investment or crown corporations. It only has to mean substantial direction of the market structure. And the tools for that already exist in provincial regulatory bodies- which the governments are free to change the mandates of.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

And if you could give me an example of what you mean from any of that, Ken, I'd be forever in your debt.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

quote: "There are many aspects of reality."

 

Yes, as many as the mind is capable of imagining, seemingly. But the one I've referred to a couple of time is the reality facing folks with the ass out of their pants and no bread on the table... at this moment.

 

 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Example of what? the tools of regulatory bodies available?


absentia
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2010

I think George Victor is interested in this part"

KenS wrote:

... there are many ways to cut the base-power load question. ... Storage, de-centralization, and distributed generation are treated as if they are pie in the sky solutions. But making them work here and now is no more expensive than increasing nuclear power generation.

Me, i think every house should have a rooftop full of solar panels, and the city high-rises should all have gardens as well, and every farm should have its own windmill, like they used to. Lots of things. Little hydro dams on little rivers (with fish ladders beside, of course) and much, much more efficient construction methods. There is no shortage of ideas and the technology for most, if not all, of it is available, tested, ready to manufacture on a large, affordable scale.

Maybe none of those energy solutions would help the unemployed to bread, but i very much doubt the $billions that governments will sink into nuclear generators will help those people any more. Maybe none of these generation sources would drive Canadian industry in competitive mode.... But then, how realistic is the expectation of that happenning with any source of energy?


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

 

You do realize that solar, at more than half a buck a kwh is not going to make Ontario's industry competitive, eh? And that nuclear provides the BASE LOAD makeup when the bloody sun isn't shining on all those neat, middle class homes with their little PV array, and a wind turning all those wind turbines...and that is why they are maintaining nuclear? 

To have these people employed again, even while we invite more to come to Canada and prosper (and they do tend to be newcomers to our great multicultural experiment)   we would have to have Steve concede that there is more to Canada than Alberta, that we cannot just be an "energy superpower" (remember?) and that Canadian industry needs not just more support for its energy innovation, but an exchange rate for the loonie adjusted downward...which would happen immediately that he stopped supporting Tar Patch activity.

Or is that all too political and the unskilled poor are just going to have to make out somehow?

 


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

We have been providing 70 per cent of our own power for close to 8 years now.  The reason we are at 70 per cent is because we can not produced enough power around the clock, even with battery storage, to run all the things we need to run on a farm.

If we can't do it on the individual scale than it would be delusional to think we can do such a thing with alternative energy an have a manufacturing base, let alone heat our homes in the middle of the night, in the middle of winter. 

It is called base load.  And that, for the forseeable future HAS to be coal, nuclear or gas, with some water power mixed in.  Any suggestion that the technology is there to store enough power for peaks and basic load is absolute bunk.  It doesn't exist in any practical sense.  For my money gas is the worse (and also the real back up for the Ontario Liberals - with nuclear being a distant distraction.  Gas is expesnive, not very effecient and creates particulate pollution that is even more dangerous than coal.

Also I am sick to death of this urban myth that industrial wind is a net positive on any scale.  It is not, farm land is torn up and destoryed for the turbine footprint plus the access road, big business is getting sweetheart deals driving up energy costs for average people, and real people are having real problems from the noise and subsonic vibration.

The truth is that all energy production has problems.  All of it- every source.  The question is who is going to pay for those problems.  Right now under government green energy schemes it is the most vulnerable that are being asked to pay a much steeper price.  For anyone who calls themselve either a progressive or an environmentalist and thinks that is okay- you don't seem to understand what those words mean.


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

WB Life....


absentia
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2010

Who is going to benefit from a change, or from retention of existing arrangements, is another question. How to survive capitalism and its assumptions about human life and work is another. There are many questions.

And there remains my original contention that Canadian industry will never compete, regardless of the energy source. (Unless maybe it gets into the clean energy technology boom, which won't last long.) Whole lot of outmoded concepts still floating around; whole lot of people still have their heads stuck in a social and economic structure that is never coming back. New world - if any -  won't look much like the old.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Again:

"Or is that all too political and the unskilled poor are just going to have to make out somehow?"

 

New or old, these folks are asking for a chance to work, not the b.s. of wishful thinking while we all wait for Godot.

You are doing damned well, Ltu. All I can do is conserve, best possible.

 


mmphosis
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2009

George Victor wrote:

You do realize that solar, at more than half a buck a kwh is not going to make Ontario's industry competitive, eh?

yes, and I don't care about making in-dust-trees competitive.  stop competing.  I am more interested in co-operatives making big PV arrays that also function as roofing, and wind turbines, and geo-thermal, and, and, and...

George Victor wrote:

And that nuclear provides the BASE LOAD makeup when the bloody sun isn't shining on all those neat, middle class homes with their little PV array, and a wind turning all those wind turbines...and that is why they are maintaining nuclear? 

trying to maintain the status quo, but failing.  the so-called middle class? with "little" pv arrays?  that makes me laugh.  how about small homes with big PV arrays, solar roofing, that more, way more, than charge up the storage, so much so that we need to share with our neighbours.  how about arrays of aluminum beer cans polished to a gleem so that the winter sun is focused in the parabola of the bottom of each can to heat up boxes on the side of Canadian homes?  providing home heating for free?!?  how about geo-thermal with 400% efficiency?!?  and, how about adding a few small wind turbines to boot?

George Victor wrote:

To have these people employed again, even while we invite more to come to Canada and prosper (and they do tend to be newcomers to our great multicultural experiment)   we would have to have Steve concede that there is more to Canada than Alberta, that we cannot just be an "energy superpower" (remember?)

other than the original inhabitants of turtle island we are all newcomers.  part of our Canadian diversity is in accepting ourselves, and others, and accepting Albertans many of them who were originally from the US of A with their own beautiful culture that they bring with them.  These days the "energy superpower" is a throw back, if I remember, to the much hated National Energy Program except that the headquarters are in Texas and China.

George Victor wrote:

and that Canadian industry needs not just more support for its energy innovation, but an exchange rate for the loonie adjusted downward...which would happen immediately that he stopped supporting Tar Patch activity.

Or is that all too political and the unskilled poor are just going to have to make out somehow?

It sounds all too political George Victor, but I like reading your posts anyways.  I am not too into nuclear energy, but I am open to new technology and maybe small scale nuclear devices have a place in the large mix of small-scale power generation.  The input of Uranium is pretty much a non-renewable resource, and one of the outputs radioactive spent fuel bundles is a debt that I certainly don't want to be responsible for.  But, nuclear energy systems in the future may not require Uranium, and there may be ways to do something useful with radio-activity decay that we haven't even thought of yet.

The unskilled (in life) and poor (in money) learn fast -- we have too, and we bring skills and richness that may not always be measured just by the value of a buck.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

"yes, and I don't care about making in-dust-trees competitive.  stop competing.  I am more interested in co-operatives making big PV arrays that also function as roofing, and wind turbines, and geo-thermal, and, and, and..."

  

So everyone is supposed to work in one industry? How is that going to work? Ever lived in a one resource town, Great while it lasts and then it doesn't.

 

We are going to need manufacturing, unless you think displacing jobs (you know that pay for things like educations and health care) or displacing our problems and pollution off on the devloping world. 

Manufacturing can not exist at 40 or 50 cents a kilowatt hour.  It just can't.  Most average people will not be able to pay that either and we will see a growing polarization between the well off, able to afford all the latest do-dads to reduce their costs and the rest of us. 

It just blows my mind how little people truly understand the realities of creating power.  It is all a mess and relying on pipe dreams instead of the real ways things work is recipe for economic collapse and growing poverty.

 

ETA

thanks remind

mmphosis
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2009

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

"yes, and I don't care about making in-dust-trees competitive.  stop competing.  I am more interested in co-operatives making big PV arrays that also function as roofing, and wind turbines, and geo-thermal, and, and, and..."

So everyone is supposed to work in one industry? How is that going to work? Ever lived in a one resource town, Great while it lasts and then it doesn't.

no, I didn't write "one industry."  You are right.  It doesn't work.  It isn't working.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

We are going to need manufacturing, unless you think displacing jobs (you know that pay for things like educations and health care) or displacing our problems and pollution off on the devloping world. 

Manufacturing can not exist at 40 or 50 cents a kilowatt hour.  It just can't.  Most average people will not be able to pay that either and we will see a growing polarization between the well off, able to afford all the latest do-dads to reduce their costs and the rest of us. 

It just blows my mind how little people truly understand the realities of creating power.  It is all a mess and relying on pipe dreams instead of the real ways things work is recipe for economic collapse and growing poverty.

funded by the fed and made in china -- how much manufacturing actually happens in Canada/USA anymore? and, has this so-called "economy" already collapsed? are we already seeing the signs of the recipe that you are writing about?

you are right about mess, but it is not all a mess.  everything is connected and everything is changing.


absentia
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2010

Ah, geez! Of-bloody-course the poor will have to fend for themselves! They always did. Are you seriously expecting Canadian industry to rise again; to bring the factories back from Thailand or wherever, and rehire all the people they discarded last round? Because the taxpayers build them a nice new nuclear reactor? Those guys have milked this cow; now they have lower-maintenance goats. They're not coming back, whatever bribes are offered (though they'll take the bribes). They're coming back to the US when Asia kicks them out and Virginia produces cheap enough labour.... and there is still a population capable of buying stuff. In other words, never.

People don't need jobs, crippling themselves physically and mentally, using up all the resources and producing effluent that gives their kids cancer, to manufacture crap 70% of which nobody needs, that has to be humped all over the world in whale-destroying ships, and becomes landfill a week after leaving Walmart. People don't need to be wage-slaves at all. People need autonomous, purposeful lives. A little dignity wouldn't hurt, either. 


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

mmphosis -you need to come out of the downtown core of where ever it is you live.  Ontario, while hit hard, is still a manufacturing economy.  We also have to heat our homes in winter in the middle of the night and for some cool our homes in hot weather due to living in places like apartment towers with no cross wind.  Never mind the huge number joules of energy needed in producing your food.

From my perspective, as an actual poducer of alternative energy, not much as changed as many are still living in the clouds rather than looking at what is going on around them on the ground nor has much changed in the ignorance they spout at those of us poor frogs as these eagles fly by.


absentia
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2010

Frogs... eagles... they were nice. Humans, not so nice.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

absentia wrote:

Ah, geez! Of-bloody-course the poor will have to fend for themselves! They always did. Are you seriously expecting Canadian industry to rise again; to bring the factories back from Thailand or wherever, and rehire all the people they discarded last round? Because the taxpayers build them a nice new nuclear reactor? Those guys have milked this cow; now they have lower-maintenance goats. They're not coming back, whatever bribes are offered (though they'll take the bribes). They're coming back to the US when Asia kicks them out and Virginia produces cheap enough labour.... and there is still a population capable of buying stuff. In other words, never.

People don't need jobs, crippling themselves physically and mentally, using up all the resources and producing effluent that gives their kids cancer, to manufacture crap 70% of which nobody needs, that has to be humped all over the world in whale-destroying ships, and becomes landfill a week after leaving Walmart. People don't need to be wage-slaves at all. People need autonomous, purposeful lives. A little dignity wouldn't hurt, either. 

spoken like a true person who will never do that dirty work, but will expect others to do it for them.

Where did I say the answer had to be nuclear.  What I said was that one of/or a combination of nuclear, coal, gas is going to have to provide base load.  Baseload is not just about manufacturing, it is about heating, about cooking supper for your children, about doing the work necessary to grow food/store it/dry it and so on. 

You live in a fantasy world if you think all manufacturing is waste.  Most of it is primary production refinement from raw materials that then creates machines for creating other products- like tractors for food production.  I will grant that consumer spending (a different animal) has always -dating back to pre-historic times, been mostly, once you eliminate food and shelter, for frivolous things like fancy hair combs, a cooler bow and so on.  Same as now, so while refrigerators and stoves are manufactured that are needed, so too are the latest webkin.  But if you think that stopping scrunchies being made would put much of a dent in manufacturing needs for a society you haven't really been paying much attention.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

absentia wrote:

Frogs... eagles... they were nice. Humans, not so nice.

Ah yes it is always easier to arrogantly dismiss than have your little bubble of unreality burst.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

I also find it revealing that those who promote this utopic vison have no clue that what is actually happening on the ground in places like Ontario is that our energy system is being privatized at an alarming rate and our 'green' future is turning into a money pile for big business and especially when you trace it back to big oil and energy companies.  So while the most vulenerable in our society are facing growing poverty due in large part to soaring electrical rates, big business is taking over our energy production and the grid space necessary for dispersing power givng them leverage to hike rates higher and higher as the future unfolds. 

The reality is that our energy production in alternatives is neither so green, dispersed or utopian as any of you seem to want to believe.


Iwant Liberty
Offline
Joined: Oct 7 2010

ebodyknows wrote:

anyone know about the bull frog power company.  Is it really a more environmental choice?

That, and its parent company, the Bull Shit Power Company.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I also find it revealing that those who promote this utopic vison have no clue that what is actually happening on the ground in places like Ontario is that our energy system is being privatized at an alarming rate and our 'green' future is turning into a money pile for big business and especially when you trace it back to big oil and energy companies.  So while the most vulenerable in our society are facing growing poverty due in large part to soaring electrical rates, big business is taking over our energy production and the grid space necessary for dispersing power givng them leverage to hike rates higher and higher as the future unfolds. 

The reality is that our energy production in alternatives is neither so green, dispersed or utopian as any of you seem to want to believe.

 

You have "been around", Life.  Thanks be to Gaia. 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments