Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
Just what I thought, a right wing slanted statistical graph that doesn’t show unicorn farts. At least the evil oil companies could have factored in fairy dust, or do they consider that “renewable’s”?
So renewables don’t even cover the increase. Remember the situation where the wife says to the husband – You’re cut off. To which the husband replies – You can only cut yourself off.
We can free ourselves from the nasty carbon based energy but China, India, and Africa sure won’t. Not only will our energy costs spike upward, theirs will probably go down. Our economy is already in the crapper from foreign competition. Why do we want to make it worse? And do we really expect poorer countries to eat up our energy source stupidity when their carbon emissions are a fraction of ours?
A very interesting and informative link Kate. And the link has interesting and informative links as well. For example,
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/370286/biomass-worlds-biggest-provider-renewable-rnergy
which says that “so far the majority of new renewable energy since 2000 has come from biomass, not wind and solar.” It’s an eye opener since I believe burning trees and using agricultural land to grow biomass is contra productive (to the stated goal of C02 reduction) and extremely inefficient (as an energy source). (And I’m being really, really gentle in my choice of words).
Here in Alberta we”re down to our last 1100 years of coal at the current consumption rate.
There may be more yet unfound reserves, it seems there”s a point in which you stop actually looking for more and 1100 years supply may be it.
Here’s a dumb part that greenies seem immune to understanding, or do not realize the implications of ( or if they do they are lunatics)
Renewables as they stand today cannot even begin to make up the increase, because of each installed Kw of renewable you need, a Kw of back up power, of the other reliable kind of power.
If you do not do that your economy will crash and burn, every time the wind stops.
I worked in a plant once where the power was unreliable, every time the power was off for more than a flicker we were down for hours fixing the mess and restarting the processes.
Nice chart, makes me happy and at the same time upset. Hydro would be much bigger were it not for pinkos trying to stop every hydro project that comes along.
Nice to see coal continuing to rise, likely mostly due to China while in North America we stupidly shut down coal plants. Go China as far as coal goes.
Note too that renewables are only where they are because of *massive* government subsidies which in my view should really lead to criminal charges. Were it not for all the taxpayer dollars wasted on those subsidies renewables would be smaller than the pixel size on your screen.
Also note that some of the renewables would not even be practical (ex. wind) were it not for the fact that coal/oil/gas etc. is there to fill the void when those stupid renewables don’t produce energy.
And to add to my previous post, nat gas is coming on strong because of fracking. And that came about through good old fashioned engineering innovation and not from wasted subsidization by government.
Dave, a tree is 45 to 50% carbon by weight (dried). Wood is primarily cellulose, C6,H10,O5 so the growing trees for fuel is a big loop. Saplings grow into trees by splitting CO2, releasing the O2 to the atmosphere and bonding the Carbon to water molecules to form cellulose. When the wood is burnt the Carbon is oxidized, using O2 from the atmosphere to become CO2 again. The cycle has been repeated millions of times and will be repeated until the sun burns out.
The problem is efficiency. If you use 10 barrels of oil to get the equivalent of 8 barrels of oil in heat energy from a truck load of wood, you would have been 25% more efficient to burn the oil for heat in the first place.
Not only is it inefficient for the reasons you gave (i.e., the gain is small to nonexistent) but wait, there’s more. Burning trees is okay in the mind of the CO2 crowd BECAUSE it is recycling “current” carbon, not carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years as in coal. Therefore, burning (current)trees is okay but coal (ancient trees) is not even though coal is a denser energy source than wood.
On the other hand, trees are carbon sinks ….. they store carbon regardless of the carbon’s age (sarc). And they’re very good carbon sinks too as they have big trunks and continue to grow to great age. Reducing the number of trees reduces the carbon sink. Furthermore, there is at least some evidence that older trees are more effective carbon sinks than young trees. Ultimately, burning trees is counter productive to the goal of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
And don’t get me started on the efficiency of other biomass……….where for starters we have to clear the land of trees.
“As a result, global carbon-dioxide emissions keep rising”
And that’s a good thing. Plants thrive because of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
“Hydro” should actually be considered renewable but by isolating the so-called green sources it helps underscore their insignificance.
Trees make a good carbon sink until they slow down their growth and start to decay (before visible signs are apparent) and eventually die during which time they give up their carbon through the respiration of organisms involved in their digestion. Timber cut, kept dry, and contained within building structures makes a more lasting carbon sink especially when fast growing young trees have replaced them and are sucking up more CO2.
Nice pic. However,when are people going to start understanding a simple,proven fact. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.It is and will be.How we waste our bucks on trying to use it,well,that may be a problem.