November 29, 2016

What stops Alberta NDP from using Saskatchewan’s “made on the prairies” solution to save coal jobs?

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

Saskatchewan has just struck a deal with the feds to keep their coal fired electricity plants online after the 2030 coal phaseout, saving thousands of Saskatchewan jobs.

Saskatchewan is using carbon capture and storage technology to meet federally mandated emissions targets, reducing emissions by 90% and using the captured carbon dioxide for oil and gas applications.

But this isn't something that could only happen in Saskatchewan. Carbon capture and storage is already being used in Alberta.

The NDP could use carbon capture to keep Alberta coal plants open just like Saskatchewan is.

Thousands of Alberta jobs would be saved if the NDP adopted this “made on the prairies” solution to reduce emissions. But they won't.

The NDP just have an irrational hate for Alberta fossil fuels, no matter how “clean” they are.

Photo credit: Shell

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-11-30 18:27:38 -0500
Thanks Robert, petition signed.
Stupid insulting companies, what make them think they can get away with insults like this? It’s as bad as Hillary calling Trump supporters “deplorables”. Bad marketing move Kellogg. Know your place, you sell cereal for cryin out loud.
commented 2016-11-30 14:20:31 -0500
While Carrier in Indianapolis has decided not to move their company to Mexico based on confidence in the Pres. elect to honour a deal brokered before the guy is even in the White House; our brilliant PM continues to shut down whole industries and put thousands of people out of work.

Hasn’t he allowed coal to continue in Sask if they they further cap their emissions? There is no reason Alberta couldn’t use the same technology to capture carbon. They just won’t. China won’t even make use of the clean burn tech available, and we are having to worry about carbon capture to cut our emissions?
commented 2016-11-30 13:12:35 -0500
The feds don’t have any constitutional authority to tell any province what they’re going to do when it comes to electricity, or resources. It is exclusively the domain of the provinces. As for the NDP, they hate anyone that is independent and successful of them. So they seek to destroy therm.
commented 2016-11-30 13:01:43 -0500
1)We can capture carbon dioxide if we want to
2)We are responsible for only 1.7% of all the global emissions
3)China, India etc. do not curb their emissions
4)We have sufficient carbon sinks which already more than offset our minuscule emissions
5)There is evidence that carbon dioxide and temp levels don’t even have a correlation (science is never settled)
6)400 ppm is not even optimal levels for photosynthesis as it is

So what does our government do? It shuts down what they can and implements a tax they know will not affect emissions, has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with wealth distribution. Reshaping our society to fit into some sick global agenda. The Canadian government is full of cultural Marxists. Time to face up to it.
commented 2016-11-30 09:05:13 -0500
Nick Visser of the Huffington Post is a nut bar.
commented 2016-11-30 07:12:38 -0500
Leviticus 2013 it’s called sarcasm.
commented 2016-11-30 06:28:14 -0500
And as Andy Neimers said, the northern boreal forest absorbs all the CO2 that Canada can produce, all massive 1.7% of man made CO2 emissions.
commented 2016-11-30 06:24:31 -0500
Liza asks, “So why do we even have to do this dance at all?”
Andy asks, “why the Hell are we having this made up debate in the first place?…”

So the liars have an excuse to tax us.

Why else would they be against a technology (carbon capture) that is proven to actually work and actually reduces carbon dioxide emission in favour of taxation instead?

It’s all about taking more money from us, that’s it.

And idiots who post comments on this website in support of the AGW lie and a carbon tax, who parrot the lie over and over and over (and mock those who resist the taxation as climate deniers), are the ones who are the real fools because they are the people who are the useful idiots of the AGW liars yet gain not real benefit from it.
commented 2016-11-30 05:05:27 -0500
And, once again…. Since Canada’s oxygen emitting boreal forest biomass, more than compensates for any carbon dioxide emissions in this country, why the Hell are we having this made up debate in the first place?…
commented 2016-11-30 02:17:34 -0500
I think the answer to Shiela’s question is that when it comes to the the green/climate issue, decisions are not made on economics, science or public benefit – climate hysteria is a cultish belief system and we see it infecting our politicians and the end result is unsound public policy.
commented 2016-11-30 01:55:53 -0500
SaskPower’s Boundary Dam power plant is the world’s first commercial-scale coal power plant with CCS. About 90% of the plant’s CO2 is captured and piped about 40 miles for injection into oil fields. Next year, the Mississippi Power unit of Southern Co. will start operating a new clean-coal plant, and construction has just started on a clean-coal power plant in Texas. Other projects are being planned, most prominently in the U.S., U.K. and China.

Clean coal tech and carbon capture tech are evolving much faster than green tech because the energy output efficiency and low maintenance dependability out weighs the costs of wind power 50-1

Yes, clean coal will require massive infrastructure investments on a global scale—but so will a major expansion of renewable-energy projects. For the electricity price of the wind projects in Ontario, we could easily have built 3 clean-coal plants with CCS.
commented 2016-11-30 01:09:41 -0500
Andrew those numbers are hogwash and wind turbines have more than carbon problems when it comes to pollution and in many places they are all but useless. And the cost of retrofitting is far lower than the cost of useless wind turbines.
commented 2016-11-30 01:02:10 -0500
Elton Braun… After reading your post you have to be kidding me..
Thanking Notley for what..????
Lying to us about a false science and then crippling us financially and more importantly choosing between food and heat in the winter time for our children.!!!
I will be thanking her (add nausea) this December 3 in Edmonton where the rebel is hosting Brian Jean for some commonsense talk and hope for the future.
commented 2016-11-30 01:02:04 -0500
I just heard a rumor from all Canadian Plant Life – they are completely confused & in frantic dismay that many Politicians want to challenge their right to LIFE.

Really! This treasonous FRAUD on civilization MUST BE STOPPED!

Eh! Interesting news! A UK Imam has declared all of us LIARS – the earth is NOT round but FLAT and all of us who believe the world is round is under Fatwa! We are supposedly all liars and deceptionists.
WOW! …that coming from another TAQIYYA artist.
commented 2016-11-29 23:54:39 -0500
So I will say it again. Since carbon dioxide levels, which are at 400 ppm, and if not the minimum amount for growth as Andrew has pointed out; it is not optimum for good photosynthesis. Monkton suggests much higher. So why do we even have to do this dance at all? Carbon capture is still a solution to a problem which does not exist.
commented 2016-11-29 23:40:58 -0500
Carbon dioxide fertilization= an end to carbon dioxide starvation. Lord Monkton says that anything under 1000 ppm leaves plants gasping for carbon dioxide. Growing plants with high carbon dioxide levels actually reduces the need for as much water and nutrients.

pertinent to this point from 44:52 to 46:60
The whole youtube is great. He totals the models and math used by the IPCC. The report hasn’t come out yet, but is going to blow the whole thing out of the water. Thanks to Glenn Craig for posting this link in another thread.
commented 2016-11-29 23:22:51 -0500
Thanks to all of you math heads starting with RAY BARHAM for doing the math .
A lot of us came to the same overwhelming conclusions
It’s a pagan ideology that doesn’t do math that we’re up against

This is so rediculous, it can’t be gone through with!!!!!!
commented 2016-11-29 22:40:53 -0500
“Here’s some easy math on the real cost of replacing the capacity of the coal power plants. All in present dollars to make it simple.

Leave coal power plants running $0. "
Plus fuel costs. Something that is frequently ignored.

“Peter Netterville commented 4 hours ago
Excellent comment, Ray! You have really done your homework.

“I’m doing the calculation for wind as solar is useless in Alberta and is actually net emitting because of the fossil fuels to manufacture and install it – not even paid for in its life.”

The need to use fossil fuels, machines created using fossil fuels, and the rare earth minerals to manufacture these solar panels is something no even one of the envirotwits ever acknowledge, let alone take into account when they dream up their “unicorns and pixie dust” fantasies.

The carbon dioxide ROI period on a wind turbine is about eight months, and that’s using pessimistic utilization ratios. To generate that same 2MW from coal would require burning roughly a tonne of coal per hour. Even at 25% utilization, that’s around 4000 tonnes of coal, or 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide saved. Per year.
commented 2016-11-29 22:35:42 -0500
“liza Rosie commented 2 hours ago
Since carbon dioxide levels, which are at 400 ppm is the bare minimum for half decent photosynthesis why do we even have to do this dance at all? "

The minimum is around 100ppm. For the most part carbon dioxide is not what limits plant growth. So called “Carbon fertilization” – changes in biomass – has been observed in only a few locations, arid places where precipitation patterns haven’t materially changed in the last half century, which is quite rare.

Biologically, it’s because plants can only “fix” carbon when they open pores on their leaves, but they lose water doing that, so the higher the concentration the faster they fix it before saturating the storage enzymes, meaning they “get their fill faster” allowing them to grow faster on a given amount of water (most desert plants only capture carbon at night, and store it so they’re not transpiring during the day) It’s actually more of a water availability issue than anything else. Most climates have enough water that water availability is not what limits carbon uptake, and most places arid enough for that to be the case have seen their precipitation patterns change, which is generally the dominant effect, To a lesser extent, but to a greater extent than any carbon fertilization, is nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from human activities.
commented 2016-11-29 22:24:37 -0500
Mostly, the billion dollar cost of the thing, and the fact that there are only a couple generators worth retrofitting.
commented 2016-11-29 21:52:11 -0500
That is a good question though Sheila. Notley wouldn’t consider an alternative solution even a proven effective one for capture (as Sask has demonstrated can and does work) if she got it for free. She won’t let anything get in the way of her plan of bringing Alberta to it’s knees. She’s having to much fun and clearly her pockets are being lined from somewhere, as is Wynne’s.
commented 2016-11-29 21:47:47 -0500
Elton you do realize that Sask uses mostly coal for their electricity. Isn’t the crystal clean air there a testament to the efficiency of coal burn technology?
Ontario is mostly clean hydro electric. Yes some coal burn, but using efficient burners. The ‘hazy’ air you are speaking of in Ontario (where i grew up) is due more to humidity in the air because of lake Ontario than pollution. It’s a common misconception. You don’t get many crystal clear skies in Ontario because of it.
Carbon dioxide is good, it makes plants grow. We don’t need no poop run buses. None of it will bring back your cold winters Elton Braun. We will have cold winters again when the climate decides to accommodate one, and no amount of man made nonsense is going to hurry it or slow it up.
commented 2016-11-29 21:09:21 -0500
In London, UK, they are running Double Decker Buses on raw human waste and the exhaust is 100% pollution free. I do not know exactly how they do this but the waste is loaded onto the Bus in containers and the engines, of course, are running on Methane. I can only assume that they have one hell of a scrubber system on the exhaust side.
commented 2016-11-29 21:08:45 -0500
10B, 25B what does it matter if there’s even the slightest chance we can bring back colder winters and save the world. Think of your grandkids and what heroes Albertans will be on the off chance it works. Then we’ll be thanking Notley and the NDP for her dedicated perseverance. I grew up in Saskatchewan where the air was crystal clean. I lived in SW Ontario for 10 years where we had a permanent hazy orange 36O degree sunset 24/7. Nobody much gave two sh*ts about that but now we have to ruin our lives over plant food and pseudoscience. Just got an email from Brian Jean. He says the NDP voted against revamping the transfer payments. She hates us.
commented 2016-11-29 21:05:32 -0500
This whole subject blows, and I won’t vote for another candidate until he or she gets on the same page as the majority of Canadians. Which is that we know that this co2 crap is an out right scam. This idiotic dance that law makers do to appease 3% of the greentards is beyond stupid. Every survey that has been brought forward says that Canadians don’t care about climate change, they care about making a living, just a FUCKING living. What’s so bloody hard to understand!!!!!!!!
commented 2016-11-29 20:48:34 -0500
commented 2016-11-29 20:28:43 -0500
Since carbon dioxide levels, which are at 400 ppm is the bare minimum for half decent photosynthesis why do we even have to do this dance at all?
commented 2016-11-29 19:43:04 -0500
The NDPIGS only objective is to slap Albertans in the face for years of being held as a 4th rate party. Ironically, that’s what they will be hoping to achieve after the next election