Go Tidal (current) energy

If we are serious about 'decarbonizing', then we need to accelerate deployment of all carbon-reduction schemes, and especially those that have the potential for large-scale reliable carbon-offset. By far, one of the most feasible high-density resource for providing FIRM, carbon-free baseline energy is in the tidal currents sloshing by on all our Pacific and Atlantic shores and major river estuaries.

Tidal (current) energy is predictable (i.e. FIRM), it has much higher energy density-potential than wind or solar (e.g. sea water is 832 times as dense as air), there are many excellent tidal current resource sites nearby to grid-hookups and population centres on both maritime coasts (and worldwide), it is non-polluting and has the lowest enviro-footprint relative to other large-generation energy technologies, and the concepts or tidal technologies now emerging worldwide are proven.

All that remains to fully seat this technology is the political will to support it; presently the UK is working most aggressively to develop a tidal industry for electricity and billions in jobs and exports, but so is Korea, New Zealand, the US and others. Canada has a chance to get in the game but it needs to commit to this, as does BC. Tidal energy is viable and will be developed; we just need to decide whether we want to develop the technology ourselves or buy it from another country.
Check out this industry association: Ocean Renewable Energy Group: oreg.ca for more industry news;
- Michael Maser, Blue Energy Canada (www.bluenergy.com)

Umm - has there been a change?

Not really.

My understanding is that Pee Wee's fundamental position is that he would not decrease the emissions of GHG but that he would only act to reduce the rate of increase of GHG.

If he hasn't changed that essential feature of his so-called environmental policy he's still little more than a dinosaur.

Much of this is hot air that

Much of this is hot air that doesn't even begin to address the issues, the main one being the presently used fraudulent definition of economic efficiency, which translates into "destruction and waste are profits, therefore efficient".

There can't be any "green" economy as long as we permit the overcapitalization of industries, with 60-70 wage years invested in single jobs, requiring huge inputs of other forms of energy to replace 1/2 hp. of human.

Because human labour doesn't cost anything to an economy.

This simple fact is beyond the comprehension of all politicians and economists have long forgotten what 2+2 really stands for. This includes Harper who has a MA in the present garbage theory.

Also, "free trade" demands the unlimited importation of goods that can be made and delivered to users at fractions of the energy inputs used to fulfill the criminal theory and demands of globalization.

But that wouldn't be "efficient".

The present demands for a "green economy" are based on physical efficiency and not on the fraudulent, monetary idiocy pushed by economists and politicians, therefore the whole idea is dead before it even started.

Ed Deak.

You can actually power electric cars from Solar Panels

You can actually power electric cars from Solar Panels ... all that money thats being shipped to the middle-east for oil, can be spent at home instead ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peW8kl-jpHc

electric cars and solar panels

Important factor however, is how long does it take to go from drained to full-charge. I expect with solar panels it's quite a while. Anything more than overnight is not going to work for most applications.

re: electric cars and solar panels

The technology is in its very early stages, also; The development of this type of Solar charging technology will come from the grassroots, and small tech companies... Chevron and Exxon would obviously like to see this type of info/technology hidden for as long as possible.

Even the Lithium-Ion Battery technology (the current leading electric car battery technology) may be changing/advancing quickly...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/115257-lead-carbon-a-game-changer-for-alternative-energy-storage

Why don't we hike gas and energy prices instead?

This stuff is dead on the water as long as we don't send signals to the market to buy more fuel efficient stuff. Raise taxes on gas and energy and make up the difference elsewhere, such as corporate taxes and personal income. But since the left wing has all bought into the need for cheap gas prices, I have to wonder: What's the point?

It will be easy...

To reduce GHGs when Canada is in a full blown recession.

I don`t see Harper or Campbell doing anything to curtail the drilling,exploring,the spewing of oil or natural gas.
The hide the pea cap n trade shell game will continue!

Remember, Green Energy is a Substitution

Anyone serious about reducing our fossil fuel dependency will understand that our energy needs will not decrease - electricity is the new gas.

It's nice for the conservationists to say we can meet targets by conserving, but Joe the Plumber will still want to go to work in a personal vehicle. If this means plug-in hybrids are going to be mainstream soon, we'd better get onto increasing our electricity supply. Geothermal heating from heat pumps displacing natural gas will also require more electricity.

And the States. They depend heavily on fossil fuel for electricity - to offset this there will need to be new hydroelectric, wind and solar. We've got droves of the first, lots of potential for the second, and probably not a real viable source of the third. Those that truly believe in green energy will also recognize that the private sector will be needed to supply this electricity.

Uncivilized

I don`t mind pursuing hydro electric energy as long as we can figure out how to do it without destroying all the fish and wildlife that depend upon a free flowing river system.

If you think that electricity is more important than wildlife,well,where does it end,unlimited power means unlimited growth,like most people who talk about unlimited power,they want to sustain the unsustainable.

MICHAEL: ISN'T THIS JUST THE 'GREEN SHIFT' RESUSCITATED?

Michael
This stuff is dead on the water as long as we don't send signals to the market to buy more fuel efficient stuff. Raise taxes on gas and energy and make up the difference elsewhere, such as corporate taxes and personal income.

To me this sounds awfully like Stephane Dion's (Mark Jaccard's?) revenue neutral Green Shift, which has now been completely repudiated by both Rae and Ignatieff.

Isn't there some reason to think that, rather than fully offsetting all carbon fuel taxes with corporate income tax cuts, and some individual income tax reductions, that there is an argument to be made for spending some of those revenues on energy R&D and subsidized applications of existing energy conservation technology?

The article talks about a huge stimulus package including big investments in public transit, for example. Thinking longer term, that is, past today's immediate need for macro stimulus, shouldn't there be some thought given to financing continuing transit and highway improvements from the federal gas tax?

And isn't it rather obvious that the demand for revenue neutrality is really intended to make the overall carbon tax package one that eventually redistributes income up the ladder rather than down? I realize that economists trained in tax policy can talk about minimizing distortions in product markets, but I have long suspected that behind all this there's something much simpler at work.

Quarry

I'm not suggesting that unmitigated development of rivers is a good thing. I think that the IPP sector has taken a lot of heat on this subject when in reality not much development has occurred. Further, this myth that our rivers are for sale is more silliness. Of all the water licenses applications in the past couple years, hydropower makes up less than 20%. Plus, these aren't even licenses, they are applications. 1/100 might become reality, but thanks to the watershedwatch people, this has been spun into a political quagmire.

Most of the degradation to BC's river systems is from our publicly-owned facilities, where we've constructed huge projects that will forever alter the hydrologic regimes of those streams.

I advocate for smaller, responsibly designed projects that don't alter streamflow significantly. Run of river projects do just this, and they are required by law to maintain minimum in-stream flows. Further, the current government is in the process of strengthening the licensing process to guarantee species and ecosystem-based flow requirements.

clarification

I meant hydroelectric-related degradation.

Here's a great blog for the latest in

Electric Car technology...

http://www.revengeoftheelectriccar.com

it's published by the same guy who produced...

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

You must be joking

Come one, facing a deep recession, the last thing the US or Canada needs is more added unemployment due to excessive regulation. Especially regulation related to that unproven theory that global warming is man made. As the Times in the UK wrote, 2008 proved what a scam global warming has been. Another power grab by environmentalists most of whom don't care about the effects their policies will have on working families. Wasn't this winter in Vancouver cold enough to dispel the accuracy of global warming?

If you really care about emissions then you should be pushing for nuclear power stations. The problem with all the other solutions: geothermal, solar, wind- is that they cannot generate power in large scale and at a reliable level. And do you know how many birds are killed by wind turbines?

Even Obama will not rush ahead with his green scheme until he knows the economy is secure. These green jobs you are talking about will take a long time to come on stream; worsening unemployment at this time is not in our interest.

And when will BC finally get its act together and develop its offshore oil resources? If Hibernia can do so why can't we? The revenues from offshore oil can pay for lots of social and environmental programmes.

Science rules

And don't count on Obama putting the breaks on addressing global warming before it's too late either..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/12/19/obama_chooses_harvard_physicist/

Michael

Yep, some of us leftees are against flat taxes like Campbell's new gas tax. If you want everyone to share the pain equally then make the new gas tax progressive so that everyone from minimum wage earners to Jimmy Pattison pay the same percentage of their wealth for energy.

Otherwise all you're advocating is abundant cheap energy for the rich while the poor freeze in the dark.

Sounds similar to the Right's idea to make health care better, charge everyone a flat fee. Just enough to make accessing the system onerous for the people at the bottom.

Yet, if you support the new gas tax and two-tier health care anyway perhaps you will also support what will no doubt be the Right's great idea to combat world hunger, make a loaf of bread and a jug of milk cost $100. Within a year, no more hunger as billions of people will no longer be around to "access the system".

Uncivilised Engineer,

If as you argue that it should be private companies that develop RoR for Hydro generation, then it it should not be with government financing AND a legal guarantee for a sale price, guaranteed by gov't, which is far in excess of today's prices.

Since this guarantees profit without risk, this is nothing other than graft.

If a need for more power in BC does develop, such installations can be done quickly, as we have seen. And since this extra power is obviously going to the US, then the price guarantee should be made by the Yanks, not us, for there is no guarantee that the price for Hydro will be going UP, not down.

Campbell is obviously not the match for the Yankee Trader that Wacky was.

Frank

It already is progressive, Frank. If you use more, then you pay more.

This is your idea? The cost of gas at the pump should be based on how hard you work; ie. you work harder, earn more than someone who doesn't work as much, therefore you pay more for gas.

Incidentally, we already have a progressive income tax scheme, whereby the wealthy are in a higher tax bracket. Therefore they also have less, as a percentage, of their earnings than the poorer, to spend on gas.

How on earth can you expect Canada to succeed in the world when you constantly suggest extreme 'Robin Hood' ideas that, by their design, discourage and punish increasing productivity.

Gas tax is progressive? NOT

Please see:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/10/30/CarbonTax/

Biggest footprints get 'perverse' break

I'm pleased to be able to repost this material for those who may have missed it the first time.

Lee and Sanger

Sure, completely objective these guys. That's like asking a logger what he thinks about banning chain-saws.

Climate change....

Climate change matters not in BC,the shine has worn off that bauble,Campbell will backtrack and revert to be an FLIP FLOPPER

Everyone knows it,

This letter sume it up perfectly!

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion.letters/Premier+Butterfly/1201486/story.html

realisticman

You're against progressive taxes, I get it. You yearn for a day when the richest and the poorest in our society pay the same amount of tax in absolute dollars. Again, I get it.

This view of the world leads you (and Michael above) to agree with ludicrous ideas such as increasing the cost of gas, food and health care until enough people at the bottom can't afford them and those at the top can carry on normally. You call this right and put down anything to the contrary as "Robin Hood"-ism.

At least you're honest about it, I'll give you that. Whereas the Michaels and the Campbells and the Flahertys of the world prefer to hide behind misinformation and outright lies.

The Green Inquisition

Notice how the moment you challenge global warming and all of their policies, you elicit a reaction that makes the so called liberals look violently hypocritical. They start calling you a heretic, shouting and insulting you until you cower. If you know anything about science, any study, theory or predictive model is open to challenge and question. There are plenty of credible scientists who question the studies behind man made global warming. You just have to be open minded enough to look at them. Like I am.

Instead, the environmentalists and enviro-nuts and enviro-terrorists have seized upon global warming as their new Holy Grail. It's another cause that's come up just in time for them to use to flail the usual bad guys: oil and car companies, the 'rich', the 'elite'. It would be a funny theme for a documentary if it didn't threaten to cost so many jobs.

Stump, I think you have grossly misread that Buffet page. Alot of those points have everything to do with hard work, perspicacity, sagacity and just plain trying hard even though it may not pay off. Life isn't fair. But, you seem to mired in the French Revolution thinking that the bourgeoise control anything. And thus the solution is to execute them with a tax guillotine.

The greening of our economy should continue at a pace that business and govt can afford. .

Not so sure Bobby

And this:

Is something I bet you wish you hadn’t written!

Self analysis is a fine thing, when it turns into self-promotion it tends to look a bit strange.

Seriously, please, provide a list of 'credible' scientists who question the fundamentals of the vast majority of the science on global warming.

I've looked - in my view there aren't any.

Some will quibble over small points, others, like the author I quoted above here for ME2, suggest that the issues are complicated and fraught and that there are elements of contingency involved (and that article was written in 1989)- but I don't think there's any serious suggestion that we are NOT in a load of trouble.

And Obama's Nobel Prize winning advisors seem to agree.

There may well be stimulus packages for sunset industries like the car companies - that's an economic question - it's not an environmental repudiation though - just a reflection of how badly we've driven off the road.

Buffettry

"Stump, I think you have grossly misread that Buffet page. Alot of those points have everything to do with hard work, perspicacity, sagacity and just plain trying hard even though it may not pay off. Life isn't fair."

No, actually I didn't. The last thing Buffett would suggest is throwing good money after bad (trying hard even though it may not pay off). Hard work is fine and dandy, but connections and capital can do more for your wealth status than hard work.

Also, enviro-nuts is such a value judgement. You project your bigotry and it says a lot. Let's call the wealthy capitalists who don't or won't give back to the people who made them rich what they are too then. Parasites.

Road removal creates jobs. Think about it.

"But, you seem to mired in

"But, you seem to mired in the French Revolution thinking that the bourgeoise control anything. And thus the solution is to execute them with a tax guillotine."

Read the Peter Singer article I've linked to and then tell me anyone need go without, rich or poor.

Why subsidise money-losing businesses?

The smart money should go to companies that are making money, or that have a product that people want to buy. This is no time for bailouts.

Printing money leads to inflation and hyperinflation. Do you want to pay $10.00 for a loaf of bread? Or $20.00? Your choice.

smaller, responsibly designed projects? WHAT'S THAT?

UnCivilizedEngineer

Further, this myth that our rivers are for sale is more silliness.

I advocate for smaller, responsibly designed projects that don't alter streamflow significantly. Run of river projects do just this, ...

You may be an engineer, but you're arguments are pure political spin, buttressed by pleasant sounding adjectives, nothing more.

Rivers are effectively for sale when the licence granted involves a permanent alteration. At the expiry of the licence in n years, who's holding all the cards? The public or the owner of the installed improvements, which are the only thing of value left on a substantially altered river or stream?

How many run of the river projects are actually meeting your description of a low impact design? Would the projects proposed for the Upper Pitt meet that test? What about the Ashlu? Have you read John Calvert's book?

Green is good, no more Growth...

Obama's stimulus package is certainly a good beginning to what needs to be done, and Canada should be following suit.

We are also going to have to overcome the notion that more growth is a good thing. The planet can no longer handle more growth, so we will have to foster economies based on sustainability and community.

I think Obama understands this, we are going to have to prosper in other ways other than by constantly expanding...