|
Ottawa Carbon Plan to rely on technology that pumps carbon emissions into the ground (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Search&Rescue |
| quote: | | I don't understand why Dalton McTard is openeing a coal-fired power plant in my backyard. |
opening a new coal-fired power plant? in Toronto?
what plant are you talking about?
and does anyone have any message for the minister of energy? he's coming to take a tour of our project site this thursday:tongue2
yes, we are building a power plant...a gas-fired power plant :nervous:
don't hate, i'm just an intern ;) |
|
|
| techead |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
I've always said we need a space canon. Anything we don't like or need, shoot into space, at the sun!
Garbage, CO2, the homeless, Stefan Dion. |
Add Celine Dion to that |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Search&Rescue
opening a new coal-fired power plant? in Toronto?
what plant are you talking about?
and does anyone have any message for the minister of energy? he's coming to take a tour of our project site this thursday:tongue2
yes, we are building a power plant...a gas-fired power plant :nervous:
don't hate, i'm just an intern ;) |
Either way it will make the air quality in the beaches (which is already one of the worst spots in Toronto) even worse. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Search&Rescue
opening a new coal-fired power plant? in Toronto?
what plant are you talking about?
and does anyone have any message for the minister of energy? he's coming to take a tour of our project site this thursday:tongue2
yes, we are building a power plant...a gas-fired power plant :nervous:
don't hate, i'm just an intern ;) |
I do!
Why, in light of the energy shortage created by the Liberal government's shortsighted closing of coal-fired power stations without replacement facilities being built first, is there a moritorium on offshore wind turbines in Lake Ontario? |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Agreed, and I already thought of that. Honestly, I am just against the whole thing because I do not believe in man made global warming ;) |
me neither, but if its what it takes to shut the hippes up so I can drive my V8 in peace, so be it.:p |
|
|
| Search&Rescue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
I do!
Why, in light of the energy shortage created by the Liberal government's shortsighted closing of coal-fired power stations without replacement facilities being built first, is there a moritorium on offshore wind turbines in Lake Ontario? |
| quote: |
Ontario to approve Great Lakes wind power
Several offshore projects are waiting in the wings
Jan 15, 2008 04:30 AM
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
Ontario is preparing to lift a controversial moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes that has been in place for nearly 14 months, the Toronto Star has learned.
A Ministry of Natural Resources official says the department is "getting ready" to make an announcement and that new minister Donna Cansfield is "anxious to demonstrate leadership in the area."
Jamie Rilett, a spokesperson in Cansfield's office, confirmed that the ministry is currently revisiting the moratorium. He said a decision would be made "shortly."
Industry sources also confirmed the moratorium's end is imminent.
Offshore wind energy, while typically associated with ocean projects, offers significant opportunities in the Great Lakes. According to one study by Helimax Energy Inc., the strong and consistent winds typically over the lakes could generate up to 47,000 megawatts of clean electricity – nearly double Ontario's existing power capacity.
The ministry put a halt to all offshore development in November 2006 to give the government more time to study the potential environmental impact of such projects on bats, butterflies, aquatic species and bird migration routes.
But the moratorium caught some wind developers off guard, particularly those trying to raise money for their proposed projects.
The wisdom of halting development was also called into question when it was discovered that some U.S. states, such as Ohio, were actively moving forward with offshore projects in Lake Erie despite the Ontario policy.
The moratorium followed a protest against an offshore wind project near Leamington, Ont., in September 2006. Nearly 300 residents showed up to a council meeting to protest a 119-turbine project planned by developer Southpoint Wind Power. Council unanimously rejected Southpoint's proposal and urged the ministry to come up with guidelines that would help small communities evaluate offshore projects.
"There were a number of serious concerns," said deputy mayor Robert Schmidt, explaining that many residents saw negative impacts on lake navigation, bird and butterfly migration, recreational boating and fishing.
"The biggest issue to most residents was how it affected their view of the lake, which is really only the last natural view we have in our area."
Schmidt said a number of offshore proposals still wait in the wings.
"The majority of people aren't against the idea, as long as it's located in an area where it doesn't cause problems."
Energy consultant Paul Bradley, manager of PJB Energy Solutions and former vice-president of generation at the Ontario Power Authority, said offshore projects hold great potential but are also a huge technical challenge.
"They're all-or-nothing projects," he said. "You've got to collect all that power from each turbine, aggregate it, and then bring it in efficiently through an underwater cable."
The best wind resources tend to be far from where power is consumed.
One of the biggest challenges is to bring wind-generated energy to communities in southern Ontario without breaking the bank on building high voltage transmission lines, which cost about $3 million a kilometre to construct.
Toronto Hydro Corp. has considered an offshore wind project in Lake Ontario near the Scarborough Bluffs. That wind farm would have a capacity of up to 200 megawatts.
"In the general context of developing wind power in the province, (lifting the moratorium) would be a great step forward," said Joyce McLean, chair of the Canadian Wind Energy Association and Toronto Hydro's manager of green energy services.
A more ambitious project by Trillium Power Energy Corp. would involve 140 turbines erected along a shallow stretch of Lake Ontario, about 15 kilometres offshore from Prince Edward County. The wind farm would have a capacity of 710 megawatts, the largest in Ontario.
Wind energy is a major part of the McGuinty government's plan to double by 2025 the amount of electricity that comes from renewable resources.
The Ministry of Energy announced last August it had directed the Ontario Power Authority to procure another 2,000 megawatts of renewable power, a large portion of which is expected to be generated from wind.
|
|
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
orko you're dismissing this idea way too fast, Alberta is working on nuclear power plants, their energies could be used instead of fossil fuels to sequestre co2. |
except the development process of most of these new technologies that will work to reduce CO2 emissions are EXTREMELY detrimental to the environment... reverse effect in the quest to conquer global warming... it's like an endless cycle :crazy: |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
me neither, but if its what it takes to shut the hippes up so I can drive my V8 in peace, so be it.:p |
Well that is the thinking. These are bull policies, to buy time until global warming is properly debunked. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
except the development process of most of these new technologies that will work to reduce CO2 emissions are EXTREMELY detrimental to the environment... reverse effect in the quest to conquer global warming... it's like an endless cycle :crazy: |
what is detrimental? I don't understand you.
Everything we do, changes our environment, there's no way around it.
If we can't assume that as human beings (and at the numbers we are now), we better just all kill ourselves and finish this off already. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
what is detrimental? I don't understand you.
Everything we do, changes our environment, there's no way around it.
If we can't assume that as human beings (and at the numbers we are now), we better just all kill ourselves and finish this off already. |
Just recently I was reading an article about an oil company in Alberta called Syncrude that is making overt and exaggerated attempts at showing the public that they are actively dedicated to reversing their ecological footprint. The biggest problem they pose is that their processes produce some kind of ... tar particles? (F*ck I read the article in french originally so I don't know how to translate this at the moment - des eclats bitumineux??? ) Anyway they are in the process of creating some kind of new technology that produces less of these "tar chips"... a technology that omits VAST amounts of carbon and is making the public and municipal government nervous. Furthermore... other nastiness produced by this new technology is dumped into waste ponds (some of which are so huge and nasty that they can be seen from a satellite) AND these waste ponds sometimes leak into nearby rivers/ponds. And freshwater is not something bountiful in Alberta. Damn it... I wish I could find the article. So relevant to this discussion.
Anyway... blah blah blah... I'm just saying that it's a funny process... reverse effects than what is initially intended. And yes I know the whole "look at the big picture/long run" ... that's not how my mind works... immediate effects are all I see. And these ones suck :) lol |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
Just recently I was reading an article about an oil company in Alberta called Syncrude that is making overt and exaggerated attempts at showing the public that they are actively dedicated to reversing their ecological footprint. The biggest problem they pose is that their processes produce some kind of ... tar particles? (F*ck I read the article in french originally so I don't know how to translate this at the moment - des eclats bitumineux??? ) Anyway they are in the process of creating some kind of new technology that produces less of these "tar chips"... a technology that omits VAST amounts of carbon and is making the public and municipal government nervous. Furthermore... other nastiness produced by this new technology is dumped into waste ponds (some of which are so huge and nasty that they can be seen from a satellite) AND these waste ponds sometimes leak into nearby rivers/ponds. And freshwater is not something bountiful in Alberta. Damn it... I wish I could find the article. So relevant to this discussion.
Anyway... blah blah blah... I'm just saying that it's a funny process... reverse effects than what is initially intended. And yes I know the whole "look at the big picture/long run" ... that's not how my mind works... immediate effects are all I see. And these ones suck :) lol |
Thats the tar sands in general, and not necessarily a process to reduce CO2. That is exactly what I was saying earlier: the tar sands use a lot of fresh water which then gets collected in toxic pools which just sit there.
It also takes place in a lot of other oil/gas mining operations. Now the interesting thing is, the price of oil has risen so much, it makes economical sense to revisit these tar ponds to further extract the last bit of usable oil. So as the price of oil continues to rise, watch for companies to start 'cleaning' these ponds, and acquire the last bit of oil from them.
Same thought process as the tar sands them selves. 10 years ago, it was far too expensive to mine the oil out of the tar sands. But, since the price per barrel has risen so much, their cost effectiveness makes a lot more sense. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Same thought process as the tar sands them selves. 10 years ago, it was far too expensive to mine the oil out of the tar sands. But, since the price per barrel has risen so much, their cost effectiveness makes a lot more sense. |
actually its the opposite, oil is more expensive to make those developments worthwhile, and not the opposite.
Oil price increases in anticipation of the costs to replaces current reserves. If the price to replace a regular well (for example) is twice as much, then price will be inflated to gather enough money to fetch that hard to get oil. Wars, katrina, etc are all bull and excuses to appease the "people". |
|
|
|
|
