anyone know about the bull frog power company. Is it really a more environmental choice?
green power
Wed, 2010-11-17 10:57
#1
ebodyknows
green power
Sun, 2010-12-05 10:11
#2
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
Sun, 2010-12-05 19:21
#3
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.
Sun, 2010-12-05 20:21
#4
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.
Sun, 2010-12-05 21:47
#5
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 10:04
#6
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 10:24
#7
remind
BC imports hydro because we export power and have to continue under NAFTA, and that goes for importing too.
Mon, 2010-12-06 11:23
#8
ebodyknows
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?
Mon, 2010-12-06 12:43
#9
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 12:47
#10
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 13:11
#11
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 14:40
#12
And if you could give me an example of what you mean from any of that, Ken, I'd be forever in your debt.
Mon, 2010-12-06 14:43
#13
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 14:59
#14
Example of what? the tools of regulatory bodies available?
Mon, 2010-12-06 16:24
#15
I think George Victor is interested in this part"
... 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?
Mon, 2010-12-06 17:26
#16
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?
Mon, 2010-12-06 17:53
#17
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 18:07
#18
remind
WB Life....
Mon, 2010-12-06 18:17
#19
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 18:30
#20
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 18:35
#21
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...
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?
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.
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 18:45
#22
"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
Mon, 2010-12-06 19:34
#23
"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.
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 19:45
#24
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 19:46
#25
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 19:51
#26
Frogs... eagles... they were nice. Humans, not so nice.
Mon, 2010-12-06 19:55
#27
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 19:56
#28
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 20:02
#29
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.
Mon, 2010-12-06 20:57
#30
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.
Tue, 2010-12-07 09:31
#31
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.
Tue, 2010-12-07 14:47
#32
BC is also being privatized and BC Hydro being run into the ground. We must meet both short and long term needs. According to this article, solar PV is now on average cheaper than nuclear. I think the price of solar PV is being distorted by Ontario's FIT system, and don't forget nuclear is still being subsidized; maybe NS can do better with their FIT system.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=historic-report-solar-e...
There are also different ways of looking at the base load question, particularly when we start looking at what energy is used for. A combination of nuclear and fossil fuels is no more sustainable in the long term than they are individually. And yes, development of renewable energy infrastructure will require a fossil fuel infrastructure, so we can't waste the fossil fuel sources in the meantime.
Tue, 2010-12-07 23:38
#33
Recently I built myself a small greenhouse, it is not quiet operational yet. I installed a small solar PV system with it, to power some small fans and in the near future a small pump and some LED lights. The solar cells load a battery, which provides power on demand to the fans, to circulate the heat energy in the greenhouse. I was surprised how well it works. the solar cells deliver even on these short and cloudy days enough to keep the system operating.
Having nuclear power providing our base load seems a bit short sighted to me. Is it not the idea that we learn to live within what our environment can sustain? Seems to me that nuclear power is not environmentaly sustainable. Our base load is so large because of our obsession with the clock, in time delivery, an inflexible lifestyle. It is like those people that say we cannot feed the world without artificial fertilizer, we can. All we need to do is change our eating habits. The same with our base line load, you make hay when the sun shines, built furniture when the wind blows, do the laundry when the water is warm. In short, make do with what the environment supplies. To keep people in jobs with unsustainable powerplants just keeps compounding the problems for our children. Think, contaminated soil, acid oceans, destroyed biodiversity, unpredictable weather, flooding coast lines, mass migration and dislocation.
Also every nuclear powerplant we built here probably means another six that will be build elsewhere. After all, one has to keep up with the competition.
Wed, 2010-12-08 09:51
#34
ah yes your experience with a small greenhouse will make sure that families can cook their suppers when needed. We run three large greenhouses and still we need a back up generation (the grid) to ensure we do not have crop failure. If our crops fail than we do not feed others and our farm is in serious economic trouble. This attitude is the same as small gardeners saying they know all about farming because they planted 20 potatoes last spring. Scale is important and changes things.
As I said we create 70 per cent of our energy needs on a working farm with solar and some wind. (Wind is mostly useless by the way- it is in abundance or not so there is never a stable supply and we live in the midst of several industrial wind farms that do the same thing - wish we had never invested in it.) Battery power technology doesn't exist to store enough energy on the scale we need let alone a whole province or region. Beleive me we tried and are constantly fiddling and upgrading to get more from our system and to reduce our energy needs in the first place. We had high hopes when we planned the conversion, but somewhere along the way reality set in. A reality too many refuse to look at. That missing 30 per cent in our system is essentially base load. Thats same base load needed in broader society- lathough the percentages are different.
Basevload is not that simple. Period.
Wed, 2010-12-08 10:03
#35
By the same token, storage by a utility company for base load appications is not the same thing as your personal struggles to implement storage that would free you from the grid.
That said, storage by utilities is also in fairly early stages. And even when it gets a lot better, its never going to be the silver bullet panacea.
But it will be a big part of the solution after we have invested a lot in the applications. For the same kind of investment that expansion of nuclear requires, huge strides towards next generation of production and distribution could be made, instead of just treading water.
Figuring out how to tread water is necessary. Burning gas is far from perfect, especially as increased extraction will come from a lot of shale gas. But its less distracting from noving to the next generation, and the plants themselves have convertability potential.
All of this is going to cost- as would more nuclear. Privatized power or not, the provincial regulator has the power to force shifts, with the government changing their mandate at will and handiling the politics with the public.
The status quo simply cannot be sustained. Using how bad the status quo is and the worse places it will willy nilly lead, is a poor argument for leaning on the nuclear crutch even more.
Wed, 2010-12-08 10:08
#36
I'm not ideologically opposed to more investment in nuclear power, nor to coal buring with sequestration [if they can make it work not just use the hope for it] for that matter.
And I think this is true for many 'aggresive environmentalists'.
But one of the criteria in investment choices for energy production has to be whether it is taking us in a direction we need to go. And if it is not, then how binding in practice will the proposed current investment be on future allocation of resources?
Wed, 2010-12-08 10:13
#37
Let alone that every wished for nuclear reactor can be obviated by efficiency gains in the use of energy.
Where we have not begun to scratch the surface, know how much there is to be gained, and know where investments of resources need to go to realize those gains in use of power.
If we can advocate investing many billions in nuclear power, where is the politics of demanding serious energy efficiency investments?
Wed, 2010-12-08 10:27
#38
of course storage and base load are not the same in technical terms. They are however the same in terms of sudden need. That is what I was trying explain and use our situation as an example.
Base load on the larger grid is for those times when demand peaks or other power generation is not available so base load is a bit of a misnomer as it is really base/peak load we are talking about.
Gas is very ineffiecent, and is the real back up plan in Ontario if you read the details. Nuclear is mostly a distraction so that people don't figure out what the Liberals are doing with gas as far as I can tell. Big investment in plants to replace coal and to back up a failed alternative energy scheme that will actually create more dangerous to human health pollution than coal. Never mind fossil fuel issues and pipeline issues.
Nuclear is moderate ineffceint in terms of providing base load. Much easier up and down than gas, but still fairly slow and requires a lot of maitenance. (ie costs)
Hydro generation is fairly effeceint, but unless we are going to destroy a lot of habitat likely not able to expand much more.
Coal is really efficeint for base load, but of course has emmissions problems. Ironically Nanicoke was getting good results in emmisions by mixing bio-fuels with coal (bio fuels like corn stalks and the like) But coal is a political issue now for a government that has broken most of its promises so actual reality about coal is not wanted or needed.
Storage of the kind of power we need for base/peak load is not there right now and not for the forseeable future. Thanks to years of neglect Ontario is reaching a generating crisis soon, and added to that a crumbling out of date grid and decisions have to be made now, not 3 decades from now.
Energy generation is never so simple as some seem to want it to be.
Wed, 2010-12-08 10:29
#39
I do agree the first answer has to be conservation, but government doesn't seem to find that very sexy unfortunetly. As a friend of mine says the cheapest new build is to not build, but to use what we have better. That of course is the real answer.
Wed, 2010-12-08 10:53
#40
The fundamental problem is that the are no big business profits in spreading energy conservation.
Governments abdicate to such a degree that even those with a good faith desire to change the fundamentals, they go looking for the quick fix that private investment is ready to do.
Ta-duh: nuclear reactors.
[And wind farms. Though that isnt about base load.]
But governments are not utterly hopeless on that count. Because the production and distribution of power is regulated, they are free to structure the market as they see fit. And they are not absolutely hopeless about the fear of structuring the market such that consumers will pay even more increases than they alreday are.
We've made significant progress here in Nova Scotia, and starting with the previous PC government. And progress has been made in Ontario as well [though not on demand side managemnt]. I see no reason to just surrender to the 'need' for nuclear power, when there is lots of political leverage we have yet to force.
Wed, 2010-12-08 12:14
#41
Where did I say we should surrender to the 'need' for nuclear power. All I have said is that wind and solar can not provide base/peak load- and they can't- and that right now that leaves us with 4 options for base load. All of which have problems. Personally I think the new build natural gas plants are the worse of the lot, (high cost, high pollution, high inefficeincy) but I am not beholden to one over the other.
I live within about 35 km, downwind, of a nuclear power plant, I am aware of their many problems on a very personal level, (including a friend who lost a lot of sheep through a gas off) but they also have positives too that we on the left seem to want to ignore. My guess is that we equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons somewhere in the back of our heads.
The simple fact is that all energy production is a problem of one kind or another. But what are we going to do, shut off our computers, our refrigerators, go back to washing clothes in the local stream and heating our homes with wood and coal in a very inefficeint distribution system. The question is who pays and what are we willing to accept as saw offs for those good things.
Wed, 2010-12-08 14:24
#42
We seem to have a different concept as to what is 'Base load'. To me the base load is the minimum power demand on the grit during the day, the minimum power that has to be there. A nuclear plant is good for that, since they basically are like a one gear car. Hard to get going and hard to change speed, good for the level ground. A hydro power plant has more or less an infinite gear box, in that you basically just have to control the flow of the water through the turbines.
Regards the green house. I have little experience with green houses. For me it is a bit of an experiment. I want to install two rows of plant boxes about two feet of the ground, and have a long insulated box underneath them filled with three to six inch rocks, as haet storage devices. To capture the excess heat from the greenhouse during the day. I too run a farm and try to cater to local clientelle that want localy produced food. To heat the greenhouse with fossil fuel from faraway makes it less 'local'.
Storage batteries are indead a weak link at the moment. At sometime, in hopefully not to distand future, I hope to be able to make use of the height differences on this farm (about 80ft), and create two ponds. One on the lower section and the other on the high ground and connect them with a four inch pipe. With a wind mill pumping the water up and a water wheel recovering the power as needed.
Wed, 2010-12-08 14:36
#43
Base power is not just the type of power production.
For example, its easier for Ontario than Nova Scotia to say it is going to do away with coal fired power production. Even though production levels of most coal fired plants can be increased or decreased according to demand.... the coal fired plants in Nova Scotia are currently required to meet the [minimum] base load needs. Much less true in Ontario, if true at all.
Wed, 2010-12-08 16:45
#44
I don't think either one of you really understand what base load means in the electrical grid sense. It is far more than just the minimum amount of power. Base load also refers to sudden peak needs as well. For instance if your system is using say 20,000 MW or power (a fairly common average for Ontario on any given day), but your can only get say 1000 MW from wind and say 750 MW from solar you need something (read coal, gas, nuclear, hydro) to meet your basic demand. You also must have electrical generation on standby to address peak issues that can be quickly 'geared' up and then 'geared' down when not needed. These peaks can be anything from people getting home and making supper, to a sudden cold or hot front coming through across a wide band, to everyone watching the gold medal olympic final at the same time on their energy guzzling plasma tvs.
Wind and solar are finite generators. They only generate as much as they are able to dependent on wind speed and light intensity. Whereas all of the others usually have extra capacity that can be squeezed out of them. That is why wind and solar can be so ineffcient as they will often either over produce, or worse under produce requiring fossil fuel or nuclear back up. There is just no storage capacity we can build that is feasible to provide storage for say 10,000 MW of power. And speaking of long term environmental problems trying to store that much energy would be environmentally ugly.
Nuclear does a good job -despite all of its problems of providing the background generation requirement part of base load. Hydro does as well. Nuclear is not good at fast up and fast down. Hydro can be, but expanding hydro generation would be an environmental and logistical nightmare (there is good reason that new hydro generation is not being created only old sites expanded) Gas is also very poor at quick up and quick down- but it is what the Ontario government is turning too. Coal is perfect for quick up and down, but is now the one we in Ontario apparently want eliminated despite all the problems the others create as well.
Ontario, and some of the coastal provinces might be a good place for tidal energy production, but as yet it remains in its infancy.
Wed, 2010-12-08 19:01
#45
Yep, and while some folks hypothesize about conservation(good) , guvmint can't do much while the herd salivates only at the prospect of lower taxes...which will bring the Cons to power here next year. And that means no conservation.
They will get their privatized system yet. Big Mike only got part way. And meanwhile, the po' folks freeze their asses.
Jesus I hate gee whiz greens.
Wed, 2010-12-08 19:51
#46
I was just hitchiking on the idea of 'minimum' when talking about base load. I still dont think it is far off. But yes, it does include typical peak spikes.
Wed, 2010-12-08 22:21
#47
Base load is the minimum load over a given period of time. That period can be daily, weekly,based on a season or a year, what ever you fancy. When we are encouraged to switch some of our electricity use to the night time we are basicaly flattening out the daily load curve and thus in all likely hood raising our base load, the higher the base load the more pressure there will be to construct nuclear power plants. The more eratic we keep our daily power curve the more difficult it will be to justify nuclear power. Something to keep in mind.
Wed, 2010-12-08 22:54
#48
Sorry but that is just flat out wrong about what base load means on a grid wide basis.
Thu, 2010-12-09 09:18
#49
Sorry but that is just flat out wrong about what base load means on a grid wide basis.
Don"t feel sorry. I am curious as to what your defintion of 'Base Load' is. Mine comes basically from the power section of 'Kent's mechanical engineer's handbook'. It is about forty years old, making it a bit dated, but in all the years I consulted it have not come across many errors.
Thu, 2010-12-09 17:27
#50
Wind and solar are finite generators. They only generate as much as they are able to dependent on wind speed and light intensity. Whereas all of the others usually have extra capacity that can be squeezed out of them. That is why wind and solar can be so ineffcient as they will often either over produce, or worse under produce requiring fossil fuel or nuclear back up. There is just no storage capacity we can build that is feasible to provide storage for say 10,000 MW of power. And speaking of long term environmental problems trying to store that much energy would be environmentally ugly.
Ontario, and some of the coastal provinces might be a good place for tidal energy production, but as yet it remains in its infancy.
I don't know about 10,000 MW, which is a ridiculously high standard of the order of the capacity of even the largest power stations, but 1000 MW is not uncommon for pumped-storage hydroelectric. Tidal energy production is not far behind advanced nuclear (generation III+), as while no standard technology has been developed, some designs are close to large scale deployment.
For me is not just the fact that nuclear power hasn't solved its waste disposal problem and isn't close to solving it, it is a centralized technology that is, like large scale hydro-electric, more vulnerable to water shortages (assuming water-cooled designs) and other threats than decentralized, smaller scale production of energy.
Wed, 2010-12-15 16:44
#51
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." - attributed to Honest Abe Lincoln.
We've been had. Hoodwinked. Duped. Conned. Fooled. The wool over my eyes is starting to itch. The ONLY way we can reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the potential devastating effects of global warming and climate change is by leaving fossil fuels right where we found them: buried underground or deep in our oceans.
Harnessing wind energy could help us achieve that goal, but ONLY if the energy produced is somehow stored so it can be used when needed; such as in a battery bank. That is not happening.
Without storing the energy produced by wind we are actually making matters worse. We are actually INCREASING our dependency on fossil fuels. That sounds pretty stupid when you first hear it, but when you look at how the electricity grid works it becomes crystal clear. Wind turbines need to be paired with fossil turbines to make it work. Supply has to match demand or the grid collapses. Only fossil fits the bill. The more wind turbines that get erected the more fossil generation we need. The hope is that "one day" we'll solve the storage issue. Problem is, if we don't, we're stuck with fossil generation because of wind energy. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
We're sacrificing the lives of thousands of bats and birds for nothing, not to mention the human impact they are having.
This is wrong.
Check this out:
Robert F Kennedy Jr. - Solar Thermal and Utility Scale Wind are Gas Plants