CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1746
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:47 pm
 


Given enough money, time, and motivation, technology can solve nearly all problems. However, if oil prices jump although we will be highly motivated to seek solutions, money will be in shorter supply, and we will have ever less time to come up with solutions. In fact, we already know what the 'solution' to the problem is, but money and motivation to implement these plans is nearly non-existent.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 153
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:57 pm
 


dgthe3 wrote:
Quote:
dgthe3 wrote:
Those technologies cannot provide much power for a city . . .


Cities waste an enormous amount of energy


Newer buildings are getting better at efficiency in heating and cooling. in fact, they have to potential to be more efficient than homes, but most generally are not. To reduce the amout of energy wasted by cities requires major city planing changes and requires the rebuilding of much of most cities. I saw somewhere that only about 9% of the energy generated in the US is actually useful energy. nearly 85% is wasted, with the rest going to petrochemicals derived from oil. Half of that wasted energy is unavoidable due to the laws of physics, but the rest can be saved by using efficient lighting, better insulation, using efficient electric motors, etc. It is a similar story in Canada

Getting back to oil...


Well, just a little mini tangent, please.... ^___^

Your standard-issue incandescent light bulbs waste nearly 90% of their energy into heat, meaning that only 10% is actually used to illuminate your reading. You might as well have a heater on!

And yet these light bulbs still riddle every building and street and town and city across the U.S. Guess it's just too tempting to get these in packs of 3 per $1 USD and change....

Imagine how much energy could be saved if as many of those fixtures as practical could be swapped for Compact Fluorescent Lighting, which release very little into heat and light significantly more per watt. Or for that matter, LED lighting which converts over 90% of its energy into light.

And surely something can be done about the heavy cost with enough demand.... '_'


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15055
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:38 pm
 


1964-D-Peace wrote:
My fear is never that the sky will fall, but that someone will MAKE it fall whether I want to or not.


On that theme were a few other books in the original link: Collapse, The Collapse of Complex Societies and Beyond Oil. Company of Strangers is a good read as well. The point being made is not that the sky is falling but we are all mutually venerable as we are so interdependent on trade. Like it or not what effects Vietnam effects Cambodia that in turn effects China and India that effects Russia and Europe and the US. Domino's all in a chain. Have one collapse the world economy is resilient enough to withstand a downswing but a massive drop off may bring the whole house of cards down.

There was a time when the President of the US sneezed and the world caught a cold, now the inverse is true. We have become dependent on a system that could ultimately become our undoing. It has happened time and time again though out history.





PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:16 am
 


Mad religious delusions=Maurice Strong. :wink:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15055
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:07 am
 


Mad Religious Delusions en masse = Fact? Tell that to the natives of Easter island! :roll:

Maurice Strong
Quote:
"Strong's most significant role at the U.N. to-date has been his position as Secretary General of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development, the Rio Earth Summit. In the opening session of the Rio Earth Summit, Strong commented: 'The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.' Interestingly, Strong had initially been blocked from participating in the conference by the U.S. Department of State. When Strong learned of this, however, he persuaded then-President George Herbert Walker Bush to overrule the State Department."


What's your idea of global environmental cooperation there ziggy? Who would be acceptable to table such an idea? Is this a vendetta vs the man or the idea?


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 153
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:11 pm
 


Yeaaaaah,... Once in a while I close my eyes and wonder how society was like when it was an established "fact" that the world was flat. It's really hard to imagine given that the luxury of hindsight and the other perks of the 21st century really cloud one's vision. But given the lack of technology, the lack of education among the populace, the widespread influence of the church(es), and the overlying threat of stigma, ridicule, isolation, exile, torture or death for anyone who questioned this "fact", and I suppose it becomes understandable why anyone would have wanted to sustain this [literal] "mad religious delusion".

Although just to make sure we don't delude ourselves now, perhaps just plain old "delusions" is probably the best term. That way it's more readily recognizable that life, even now, is full of them, and in more ways than may seem obvious given our shortcomings. -_-'


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 718
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:51 pm
 


ziggy wrote:
When Alberta runs out of gas for the rest of the planet we will still have our massive wind farms which are very reliable sources of electricity,each tower will power 400 homes minimum and they turn constantly thanks to our endless supply of wind.The oil companies are building wind farms to so what does that tell you?
You can thank a small town Alberta farmer(Pincher Creek) for taking on Transalta for the right to get power produced from his small windmill onto the grid.Nowadays your not in the oil bussiness,your in the energy industry.


Ziggy, your dreaming.

Alberta power demand March 2005 = ~8,000MW
Alberta installed wind capacity 2005 = ~120MW

I don't know if the info I have is still accurate, but there is only 120MW wind energy installed in AB, and represents about 100 wind turbines. Add onto this the fact that wind turbines do not have an endless supply of wind. Alberta's wind farms have a capacity factor of 20-35%. This means that of the 120MW installed, you are getting the equivalent of around 120*.30 = 36MW. Compare this 36MW to the 8,000MW that you required in Alberta and you start to see just how "tick on an elephant's back" your "massive" windfarms really are.

Coal is the new hot commodity in North America, like it or not. It is going to become even more prevalant moving forward given natural gas's soaring cost and the inability to supply the North American insatiable demand for electricity with other forms of generation.

m


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1746
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:31 am
 


Quote:
Coal is the new hot commodity in North America, like it or not


doesn't it already provide 1/2 of America's electrical energy needs? And although that works fine for them, i don't know how much coal we have up here in Canada, but i don't think it is that much. i heard somewhere that the US has about 150 years supply of coal left, which is quite a long time considering it has been using coal for about that long so far. Canada gets most of it's electrical energy from hydro-electric and nuclear power. We coulld get rid of coal power here all together, if we invested a bit more into smaller scale projects for electricity. Instead of building one huge dam that creates a lake the size of a small country, or a series of them to flood an area the size of Germany (see northern Quebec), build smaller ones that provide power for a local town. Or make it cheaper for individuals to have a wind turbine to power their home, or to use solar energy to heat it. A lot of the electricity that we generate gets lost due to resistance in the powerlines themselves.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 718
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:01 pm
 


You are from Ontario, which you can tell from your post without reading your location ;)

Alberta is 80% powered by coal, Saskatchewan 70%, and Canada is over 25% thermal generation, with nuclear at about 12% from what I can find. Canada is also a net exporter of coal, making it an important commodity for the country.

Your "we could get rid of coal here altogether" is a very frustrating and common response. It is untrue. It is also the reason that people in the East don't understand why westerners are so concerned about Kyoto. It is the primary source of power for millions of Canadians, you can't just discount these people.

I don't mean to get on you here, bro. There are people in Alberta that don't even realize that coal is their number one source of power...hehe.

Take care
m


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1746
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:05 am
 


Hey, that's fine Mukluk. I was basing what i said on my knowledge that Ontario and Quebec are the largest power consumers in Canada. About 1/2 of Ontario's electrical energy comes from nuclear, about 1/4 each from hydro electric and coal. Quebec has massive hydro electric generation capacity up around James Bay in a project where they plan on flooding an area the size of Germany, as well as other facilities already in operation. They also have a fair amount of nuclear generation also.

Quote:
Generation Mix
The main sources of energy are oil, gas, coal, and electricity generation. As is shown in Graph 1, electricity is generated by hydro (61.8%), nuclear (17.3%), coal (15.6%), gas (3.1%), oil (1.5%) and other sources(0.6%). The installed capacity of all power plants in operation in 1995 was 115.5 GW


that is from http://www.ieahydro.org/AboutHydro/Hy-Canada.html . Sorry the info is old and doesn't come from a particularly reliable source (it has .org) but it is the best that i could find.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.