June 14, 2017

Canada’s politicians chase renewable fantasies instead of fossil fuel realities

Holly NicholasRebel Commentator
 

Stats from the International Energy Agency show solar and wind make up less than one per cent of energy now and will only rise to just under 3% by 2040 meaning coal, oil and gas will remain our major sources of energy. 

According to the latest forecast from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, oil sands projects are expanding and production will increase by 1.3 million barrels per day by 2030.

Canada’s National Energy Board production stats show that the oil sands do and will make up the majority of production to 2040. This all aligns with data coming from the International Energy Agency as well.

Yet, our governments are implementing policies against increasing production and building pipelines.

Rachel Notley has put a 100 mega tonne cap on emissions that will stunt oil sands production growth between 2025 and 2027.

The Liberals put a stop to projects like Northern Gateway and they’re guaranteed to face opposition from the BC Greens and BC NDP who have made a deal to fight the TransMountain pipeline the Liberal government previously approved.

Meanwhile, the United States just opened its first coal plant under Trump and have doubled their oil and gas production, built new pipelines and signed deals allowing us to build Keystone XL across their border.

That would seem the logical choice for Canada too – increase oil and gas production and build pipelines in order to get our oil and gas products to market.

We have a wealth of resources to offer with the sixth highest reserves in the world yet governments in Canada insist on implementing costly “green strategies” to win social license to get projects off the ground instead of just doing it.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-06-16 02:28:10 -0400
Someone try Jim… But the butt plug fell out.. Apparently there was a miscalculation on the interference fit.!!
commented 2017-06-15 23:06:19 -0400
I sincerely wish someone would put a cap on Rachel Notley’s emissions.
commented 2017-06-15 18:37:29 -0400
I have a job to muffin.!!
commented 2017-06-15 18:34:27 -0400
That’s OK muffin (Andy)..
I know that engaging intellects requires superior staying power but you take a break now and feel free to engage when you feel you can do so.
commented 2017-06-15 17:39:30 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, I re-name you Cliff Clavin. Please change your handle to reflect your new name!
commented 2017-06-15 17:37:16 -0400
Oh Andrew Stephenson, you chastised me for telling you to reread all the posts, I told you I had wasted enough time on you yesterday. Now, you claim you are a minority Rebel poster with a job! What a fantastic fail!!!!!

I have a job too, I job-share and most of what I make goes to taxes…good thing I love the job I do!
commented 2017-06-15 16:47:27 -0400
It’s hilarious that you actually have a job because you cannot even follow simple direction.
commented 2017-06-15 16:43:00 -0400
“Leviticus 2013 commented 12 mins ago
Angie.. Once again you have been weighed, measured and have been found wanting.. "

You know, unlike a lot of people here, I have a job and can’t sit on the internet all day.
commented 2017-06-15 16:40:50 -0400
“Leviticus 2013 commented 3 hours ago
Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this..” which are directly measurable"

Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"NOW PROVE IT.!!! "

Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"NOW PROVE IT.!!! "The first law is Newton’s laws of universal gravitation – gravitational attraction is proportional to the gravitational constant G times the mass of the central body divided by radius squared. You can look up the derivation of that yourself. It’s not strictly accurate (relativity plays a role) but it does a reaasonable approximation. To generate an orbit, you need centripetal (centrifugal) force equal to gravitational attraction… which is a product of orbital speed (circumference of the orbit divided by time) and radius. . You can set up a proportional relationship such that the constant cancels out, leaving you with a set of equations where the only unknowns are the mass of the central body and the radius of each body’s orbit, which condenses down to a fairly simple algebra problem.

Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"NOW PROVE IT.!!! "The first law is Newton’s laws of universal gravitation – gravitational attraction is proportional to the gravitational constant G times the mass of the central body divided by radius squared. You can look up the derivation of that yourself. It’s not strictly accurate (relativity plays a role) but it does a reaasonable approximation. To generate an orbit, you need centripetal (centrifugal) force equal to gravitational attraction… which is a product of orbital speed (circumference of the orbit divided by time) and radius. . You can set up a proportional relationship such that the constant cancels out, leaving you with a set of equations where the only unknowns are the mass of the central body and the radius of each body’s orbit, which condenses down to a fairly simple algebra problem.As for speed of light, go look up the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were looking for something else (the “aether”, a supposed medium for light to travel through much as sound travels through air) but incidentally nailed down the speed of light very precisely. This, again, uses optical interference (in essence, whether light waves are in-phase or out of phase) to detect the speed of light with high precision. This was before physics established that photons do not need a medium to propagate through, and before Einstein determined that the speed of light is invariable to any particular observer anyway, with the rate of perceived time flow changing with your own velocity, rather than relative speed of light.

Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"NOW PROVE IT.!!! "The first law is Newton’s laws of universal gravitation – gravitational attraction is proportional to the gravitational constant G times the mass of the central body divided by radius squared. You can look up the derivation of that yourself. It’s not strictly accurate (relativity plays a role) but it does a reaasonable approximation. To generate an orbit, you need centripetal (centrifugal) force equal to gravitational attraction… which is a product of orbital speed (circumference of the orbit divided by time) and radius. . You can set up a proportional relationship such that the constant cancels out, leaving you with a set of equations where the only unknowns are the mass of the central body and the radius of each body’s orbit, which condenses down to a fairly simple algebra problem.As for speed of light, go look up the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were looking for something else (the “aether”, a supposed medium for light to travel through much as sound travels through air) but incidentally nailed down the speed of light very precisely. This, again, uses optical interference (in essence, whether light waves are in-phase or out of phase) to detect the speed of light with high precision. This was before physics established that photons do not need a medium to propagate through, and before Einstein determined that the speed of light is invariable to any particular observer anyway, with the rate of perceived time flow changing with your own velocity, rather than relative speed of light.The primary sources for this will describe it far better than I can.

Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"NOW PROVE IT.!!! "The first law is Newton’s laws of universal gravitation – gravitational attraction is proportional to the gravitational constant G times the mass of the central body divided by radius squared. You can look up the derivation of that yourself. It’s not strictly accurate (relativity plays a role) but it does a reaasonable approximation. To generate an orbit, you need centripetal (centrifugal) force equal to gravitational attraction… which is a product of orbital speed (circumference of the orbit divided by time) and radius. . You can set up a proportional relationship such that the constant cancels out, leaving you with a set of equations where the only unknowns are the mass of the central body and the radius of each body’s orbit, which condenses down to a fairly simple algebra problem.As for speed of light, go look up the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were looking for something else (the “aether”, a supposed medium for light to travel through much as sound travels through air) but incidentally nailed down the speed of light very precisely. This, again, uses optical interference (in essence, whether light waves are in-phase or out of phase) to detect the speed of light with high precision. This was before physics established that photons do not need a medium to propagate through, and before Einstein determined that the speed of light is invariable to any particular observer anyway, with the rate of perceived time flow changing with your own velocity, rather than relative speed of light.The primary sources for this will describe it far better than I can.ps – if your’e going to accuse me of plagiarism, please ensure you tell me where, exactly, it’s plagiarized from. Once again… you wouldln’t dare make the accusation without evidence, would you? :)
commented 2017-06-15 16:30:35 -0400
Angie.. Once again you have been weighed, measured and have been found wanting..
commented 2017-06-15 15:31:12 -0400
Leviticus 2013 – Andrew Stephenson’s pattern is to never provide sources or properly cite who she is borrowing from; it’s like communicating with Cliff Claven!
commented 2017-06-15 13:15:08 -0400
Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"

Ok.. I thought you would say some regurgitated BS like that…
Now I want you to prove all your statements with hard facts and repeatable scientific experiments prove where the orientation numbers are coming from for the starting points of all the formulas.
..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
You said this.." which are directly measurable"NOW PROVE IT.!!!
commented 2017-06-15 12:31:31 -0400
We do know, with a very high degree of precision. How long an object takes to orbit another is dependent only on the mass of the orbited body, and your radius from it. Using observed orbits of Earth and other planets (all we really need is a list of orbital periods, which are directly measurable), we can do a very simple multivariate analysis and calculate, with very high precision, the mass of the sun, and from that the radius of any given planet’s orbit. It’s a bit more complicated than that (there are things like relativistic effects, which cause long term perturbations) but it’s easy to get a reasonably precise estimate. It can also be directly triangulated. That we can send probes to other planets with ease indicates we’ve got the solar system’s parameters measured very well.

Measuring the speed of light is similarly not impossible. Beyond the fact that that very measurement is how GPS or radar works and communication delays are directly measurable … it’s almost within the realm of the amateur to measure with a laser and a mirror (in essence, the “reflection” will be offset by some fraction of a wavelength due to travel time leading to interference patterns that can be measured and plotted, solving for travel time). It’s not totally perfect – that’s why GPS is a few metres off, (though some of that is due to variations in air density which aren’t currently tracked that precisely) but again … we know these variables with a high degree of precision.
commented 2017-06-15 11:35:02 -0400
We have no idea how far we are from the sun and scientific hypothesis comes nowhere close in to proving that beyond a doubt … Any scientist worth his salt will tell you you can’t measure what can’t be measured..
“the science of mathematics has and can be made so obscure that the average person will not understand it.. The results powered by the input can be skewed to fit any narrative without pushback.”
So the would be hypothesis supporting, unfounded on hard science pseudo scientist Andrea.. Once again you have conspired further to project conjecture and hypothesis into the minds of people as opposed to hard factual science.
One cannot measure what cannot be measured such as the speed of light…
The orientation points which lend themselves to the mathematical formulas have at the entry point are all speculation with no founding basis because you cannot measure light..
Even Cerns will tell you that they have no idea how fast the particulate is traveling inside their machine.
They simply guess like everybody else.
The smartest man in the world even in the words of Albert Einstein was Nicholas Tesla and you would do well to familiarize yourself with this genius..
commented 2017-06-15 11:17:51 -0400
Why burn liters of gas at four times the price during peak hours when you can burn clean energy efficient provincially abundant coal 24 seven..
Pass the savings onto the consumers and while we’re at it open up the constitution limiting the powers of government give the people authority over their land kick the central banks out of Canada and drain the muskeg while Trump drains the swamp..
commented 2017-06-15 11:10:50 -0400
“Leviticus 2013 commented 10 hours ago
Next you’re going to tell us that the sun is actually 93,000,000 miles from earth.. "

Ah, see, that’s an interesting comment … because we rarely ARE that distance from the sun. In fact, we’re quite a bit further away than that, closer to 95 or 96 million miles,

The Earth’s currently 94.4 million miles from the centre of the solar system. We’re near aphelion, the point in the planet’s oval orbit that takes it furthest from the centre.

But … there’s another influence. The Sun doesn’t lie at the centre of the solar system (the barycentre… which is the centre of mass, is what the planets actually orbit). Jupiter’s so big that Jupiter and the Sun actually orbit each other, around an imaginary fulcrum that lies outside the mass of the Sun… and both Jupiter and Saturn (which has a similar, but weaker effect, it’s much lighter) are on the same side of the solar system as we are right now, meaning the Sun’s another million miles or so further away from that barycentre, the centre of mass, and thus us. We are thus actually somewhere between 95 and 96 million miles from the centre of the sun, and about 400,000 miles closer to the surface.

This is an interesting illustration of the difference between the simplistic conservative views, and the actual, more sophisticated Liberal models, isn’t it? I had fun doing it.
commented 2017-06-15 10:47:42 -0400
Drew,

Why don’t you go tell Quebec that they can’t convert falling water into electricity? I’m sure they will be delighted to know that their power grid doesn’t actually work.

The Bolt’s rated at 6km/kwh, the comparable gasoline Sonic is about 12km/L. A litre of gas thus gets you twice as far as a kwh of power … but even at on-peak rates, that litre costs four times what the kwh does. This means “fuel” costs for an electric, even in Ontario, are about half. In Quebec or Manitoba, which have cheap power, gas is six or eight times more expensive than hydro for the same distance traveled.

This will improve their disposable income.
commented 2017-06-15 01:48:22 -0400
Andrew Stephenson sorry but water is not stored electricity. And Ontario is doing terrible and electricity is super expensive, do you even think of the cost of running an electric vehicle even in limited urban use?
You do realize people need money for food and shelter and other such things to live right?
commented 2017-06-15 00:45:52 -0400
Next you’re going to tell us that the sun is actually 93,000,000 miles from earth..
commented 2017-06-15 00:43:18 -0400
Angeline your kung fu is weak
but so are your reading skills
but your science… Your understanding of science is well.. unconscionable at best….!!
You have been discredited with your admission of scientific hypotheses replacing repeatable and provable experiments.!!

Now be a good little monkey and run along..
:-)
commented 2017-06-14 23:50:51 -0400
Ah, so you’re going with the accusations you can’t back up path.
commented 2017-06-14 21:17:15 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, I have wasted enough time on you today, go back and read your posts, read mine, read Peter’s, very clear where you deflected, flipped etc…
Once you have read them, read them again – you seem slow!
commented 2017-06-14 20:22:56 -0400
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2 mins ago
Andrew Stephenson, you are really bad at this. Fire your SJW mentor immediately!
If you are too mulish to recognize when your position has flipped, flopped and died; that tells me it’s not really your position…you are scanning for material to copy and paste; and try to maneuver it into to your post, even when you are deflecting. You have been repeatedly called out on this, and proven to be a useful idiot in parroting nonsense.
Really try to wrap your mind around the fact that you are a poser! "

How did it flip-flop? I’d be thrilled if you could explain why you feel so. I disagree, but perhaps you’ve observed something I missed.

Where is it copy-pasted from? (not that you’d make such a grave accusation without evidence, would you?)
commented 2017-06-14 20:20:14 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you are really bad at this. Fire your SJW mentor immediately!
If you are too mulish to recognize when your position has flipped, flopped and died; that tells me it’s not really your position…you are scanning for material to copy and paste; and try to maneuver it into to your post, even when you are deflecting. You have been repeatedly called out on this, and proven to be a useful idiot in parroting nonsense.
Really try to wrap your mind around the fact that you are a poser!
commented 2017-06-14 20:08:05 -0400
" Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson, you are deflecting … shame on you!
Where do suggest Ontario stores solar power for future use? Oh, that’s right, the technology hasn’t been developed yet.
Doubt you have ever been to Ontario, to know what kind of potential there is here…potential doesn’t matter at this point does it? Billions have got up in smoke thanks to the Liberals, this smoke won’t heat houses by the way"

The technology exists. In fact, it was invented in the 50s, if not before. You use the power to pump water uphill, then run it through turbines later. There’s already a small facility at the Beck plant that does just that, and it’s been there for decades. Or, you run off solar during the day, then at night, you run off the hydro turbines. Pretty simple, and already done to a significant extent.

“Peter Netterville commented 2 hours ago
“So, what would replace the diesel engines?”, I asked Andrew. Andrew replied, “Overhead wires.”

You think running overhead wire over 46,000 km of railway tracks in Canada is a feasibility? Riiiight, okay.

Andrew said to Tammie, “In a province like Ontario, which has considerable hydroelectric potential, that is viable ‘storage” on its own. "

Now you are switching your premise. Hydro electric is not considered a “green” technology and you were only advocating for solar, wind and bio energy in your previous comments. Now you are claiming hydro electric as a viable “green” energy storage. There is a word for that flip-flop of your position"

Germany’s electrified 20k of its 43k kilometres. If we did the same, then we’d be able to electrify all our heavily used mainline and a lot of the lesser used branch lines.

Hydro is ‘greener" than fossil fuels and a renewable component that extends it even moreso. In Ontario’s case you’d be reallocating existing facilities where the damage is already done.
commented 2017-06-14 18:48:51 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, pack up your tent, get informed and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
You seem to live a Disney existence…grow up!
commented 2017-06-14 18:35:24 -0400
“So, what would replace the diesel engines?”, I asked Andrew. Andrew replied, “Overhead wires.”

You think running overhead wire over 46,000 km of railway tracks in Canada is a feasibility? Riiiight, okay.

Andrew said to Tammie, “In a province like Ontario, which has considerable hydroelectric potential, that is viable ‘storage” on its own. "

Now you are switching your premise. Hydro electric is not considered a “green” technology and you were only advocating for solar, wind and bio energy in your previous comments. Now you are claiming hydro electric as a viable “green” energy storage. There is a word for that flip-flop of your position.
commented 2017-06-14 18:23:17 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you are deflecting … shame on you!
Where do suggest Ontario stores solar power for future use? Oh, that’s right, the technology hasn’t been developed yet.
Doubt you have ever been to Ontario, to know what kind of potential there is here…potential doesn’t matter at this point does it? Billions have got up in smoke thanks to the Liberals, this smoke won’t heat houses by the way!
commented 2017-06-14 18:07:43 -0400
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2 mins ago
Andrew Stephenson said in part, Ontario’s problems are contractual, not technological.

Now Andrew, you know this isn’t true! There is no technology allowing solar energy to be stored for future use. So, yes, there are problems with the green energy scheme, lack of technology; coupled with mismanagement of contracts etc…. and it was launched decades before it made any sense to do so. Billions baby! "

In a province like Ontario, which has considerable hydroelectric potential, that is viable ‘storage" on its own. Either pumped, or by simply storing water in the reservoir until it’s needed. This is already feasible and done to some extent.