Canada Plans To Phase Out Coal-Powered Electricity By 2030 (theguardian.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada Plans To Phase Out Coal-Powered Electricity By 2030 (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday November 21, 2016 @12:05PM from the countdown-timer dept.

Last week, French president Francois Hollande announced that France will shut down all its coal-fired power plants by 2023. This week, Canada's environment minister, Kathleen McKenna, announced that Canada plans to phase out its use of coal-fired electricity by 2030. The Guardian reports: [McKenna] said the goal is to make sure 90% of Canada's electricity comes from sustainable sources by that time -- up from 80% today. The announcement is one of a series of measures Justin Trudeau's Liberal government is rolling out as part of a broader climate change plan. Trudeau also has plans to implement a carbon tax. "Taking traditional coal power out of our energy mix and replacing it with cleaner technologies will significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, improve the health of Canadians, and benefit generations for years to come," McKenna said. Four of Canada's 10 provinces still use coal-based electricity. Alberta had been working toward phasing out coal-fired electricity by 2030.

147 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

They don't even use the word "electricity" up there. They call it "hydro".
1. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  As someone recently moved from Alberta to Ontario, I find the use of "hydro" here when talking about electricity to be annoying.
  captcha: distill
2. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hydro is short for hydroelectricity. Several provinces generate vast amounts of it and the name stuck. In Manitoba, natural gas and electricity are delivered via Manitoba Hydro, a provincially run corporation.
3. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yeah, it's called Hydro because in BC, Quebec and Newfoundland/Labrador most of the electricity is Hydroelectric. Alberta and Saskatchewan use primarily coal. Ontario is the only province that uses primarily Nuclear, Hydroelectic and Natural Gas, but their power distribution network is called Hydro One.
  There are only 14 coal plants in Canada. 7 of them are in Alberta. 3 in Saskatchewan, 2 in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has one of everything.
  So shutting down the coal plants mostly impacts Alberta, and the fun fact is that Alberta can pretty much "mooch" off BC while it transitions to something else.
4. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Manitoba Hydro operates one coal fired unit in Brandon MB that is used only during system emergencies
5. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  Here in BC the Province is building a new hydroelectric generating plant and the environmentalists are protesting.
  They say it's not needed, because electricity usage will go down with more efficient usage.
  They say this as the population grows and the wind down of fossil fuel usage continues.
  I sometimes wonder how people can remember to breathe when they're this stupid.
6. Re:Coal in Canada? by Layzej · 2016-11-21 14:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Canada's province of Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to fully eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation. This had the greenhouse gas reduction equivalent of taking 7 million cars off the road. Not bad for a province of just under 14 million.
7. Re:Coal in Canada? by Wrexs0ul · 2016-11-21 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  The coal phase-out is on course to happen a lot sooner in Alberta. Our provincial government has made climate change a major part of its platform, which also includes leading the charge towards a "carbon tax" designed to cap carbon-emitters by placing an economic penalty on going over the limit.
  Mixed feelings about this. It's impossible to deny man made climate change exists, on the other hand we seem to be moving at a faster pace than our ability to replace our energy needs with cleaner/renewable sources. Ontario's facing a self-made energy crisis right now where power prices are driving people to pick between paying their hydro bills or buying food, and that says nothing about driving business out of the province.
  Fortunately this is a technology problem. My hope is Elon Musk's battery tech improves in the next 3-5 years so that Alberta can benefit from harvesting and storing energy affordably in winter.
  
  --
  --- Need web hosting?
8. Re:Coal in Canada? by Mashiki · 2016-11-21 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. And it also was one of the contributing factors to drive the price of electricity from $0.07kWh at peak to the current price of $0.18kWh at peak in less than a decade. Though the main culprit behind that is the "green energy" program here, which as paid at rates as high as $0.92kWh for generation. How it's effectively fucked us. How it's putting farmers out of business. How the government knew it was a bad idea from the start. And it's shit like this that causes populist revolts. It is now so bad here in Ontario, that 700k hydro customers are 4 months or more in arrears. And 70k people have had their electricity cut because of non-payment. The largest hydro company in Ontario is Hydro One with 1.3m customers to give you some scope of how these policies are completely fucking things up. And if you American's don't pay attention to this, you're going to see the same thing. If you want to see it in action? Look at Alberta. Yep they use coal. They use coal because the population is so spread out that transmission lines don't exist. Now, they're having to build new transmission lines as well.
  Short sighted, shitty policies and all it does is hurt everyone. Top that out with the proposed "carbon taxes" Canada will likely hit a recession within 3mo of them being implemented, and if we don't hit a depression when the cost of goods jumps at a minimum of 20% which is the conservative estimate from some of the most liberal think tanks in the country. I'll be surprised.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
9. Re:Coal in Canada? by gtall · 2016-11-21 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  I notice you fail to include any costs due to the environmental impact of using coal. Myopia, get it looked at.
10. Re: Coal in Canada? by JimBimBam · 2016-11-21 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Be f***ed now, or be f***ed later. If you factor in the external cost coal is pretty expensive. But, those cost will have to be paid by someone else. That's good business. http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
11. Re:Coal in Canada? by Mashiki · 2016-11-21 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I notice you fail to include any costs due to the environmental impact of using coal. Myopia, get it looked at.
  Far less then the immediate impact then say the steel industry, or the huge amount of smog that's in Toronto for example. But I'm sure if you lived here, you'd be perfectly fine paying the electricity rates that we are right? Or would you be one of those middle class people who are now one pay cheque shy of being unable to cover anything.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
12. Re: Coal in Canada? by Mashiki · 2016-11-21 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Be f***ed now, or be f***ed later. If you factor in the external cost coal is pretty expensive. But, those cost will have to be paid by someone else.
  Considering losing cheap electricity counts for both? It means that tax bases dry up as companies move elsewhere, it means that there's less money for healthcare. It means that the government has to borrow more money to cover the existing programs at the same level. So you tell me what's worse, the fact that you're going to be buried alive in sovereign debt like Ontario is now -- and has the highest debt per-person of any western "state, province, or country" or you engage in short-term feel good politics(like removing those plants) and smile as your industries pack up and leave for places where they can manufacture goods cheaper. Then wonder where you're going to get the money to cover those already in-coming healthcare costs.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
13. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  you also forgot to mention Wynne's newest "apology" for her catastrophic "mistake"
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wynn-hydro-her-mistake-1.3859003
  Sure, ROC, please learn from Ontario's mistakes..
14. Re: Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  So what you're saying is this:
  https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_02_03.pdf
  Is better than that:
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1518911/
  Lovely. Destroying the future of today's children for the faint hope that things might be better for theirs.
15. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot one of the biggest reasons of large hydro bills in Ontario, and it wasn't the switch away from coal. The debt retirement charge where we, the customer, got to pay off the debt of Ontario Hydro when it went private and was broken up into Hydro One and all the other various utilities. And not only did we get to pay off that debt, we got to do it twice because instead of putting that money towards the debt the first time the provincial government used it for other things.
16. Re:Coal in Canada? by fche · 2016-11-22 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  "This had the greenhouse gas reduction equivalent ..."
  And all this accomplished -what-, in terms of climactic effect?
17. Re:Coal in Canada? by Layzej · 2016-11-22 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  We need to get to 0. Every journey begins with a single step.
18. Re:Coal in Canada? by fche · 2016-11-22 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  A step taken voluntarily will last longer than a step made at the point of a sword. IOW: absent emergencies, governments should adjust incentives, and gently.
19. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Your memory is short if you don't remember the smog days in Toronto of the 90's. We had one of the hottest summers on record and how many smog days? 1 smog alert for the Province of Ontario this year on June 18 in Toronto. Not one other alert in the entire province this year. That's pretty impressive.
  http://www.airqualityontario.com/aqhi/advisories.php
20. Re:Coal in Canada? by Layzej · 2016-11-22 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  IOW: absent emergencies, governments should adjust incentives, and gently.
  I agree completely. Governments are currently taking a top down approach where they pick the winners (feed in tariffs for solar/government investment in emerging technologies/etc) and losers (efficiency standards/banning coal/etc). Government actions will never be as efficient as market driven solutions. Surprisingly even most of the candidates running for the Canadian federal Conservative Party leadership are advocating "big government" solutions.
  Only the Conservative leadership candidate Michael Chong is advocating for a market driven solution: "We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to both lower income taxes and clean up our environment through the pricing of carbon," Chong said Wednesday at a news conference on Parliament Hill.
  "It works. BC implemented and now has the fastest growing economy, the lowest income taxes in Canada, and they have reduced emissions"
21. Re:Coal in Canada? by tlhIngan · 2016-11-22 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  So shutting down the coal plants mostly impacts Alberta, and the fun fact is that Alberta can pretty much "mooch" off BC while it transitions to something else.
  And Alberta is ALREADY transitioning away from coal. In fact, earlier this year BC and Alberta (they're neighbouring provinces) signed an agreement where Alberta will start getting electricity from BC in the meantime.
  So the impact to Alberta will be far lower in the end because Alberta is already trying to move away from coal.
22. Re:Coal in Canada? by dj245 · 2016-11-22 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's called Hydro because in BC, Quebec and Newfoundland/Labrador most of the electricity is Hydroelectric. Alberta and Saskatchewan use primarily coal. Ontario is the only province that uses primarily Nuclear, Hydroelectic and Natural Gas, but their power distribution network is called Hydro One.
  There are only 14 coal plants in Canada. 7 of them are in Alberta. 3 in Saskatchewan, 2 in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has one of everything.
  So shutting down the coal plants mostly impacts Alberta, and the fun fact is that Alberta can pretty much "mooch" off BC while it transitions to something else.
  I am most familiar with the plants in Nova Scotia, so I will comment on those. Nova Scotia is essentially an island by both geography and the current grid. There is a HV line to New Brunswick, but capacity is only around 350MW. Nova Scotia does also have a line to Newfoundland but this is an underwater line of limited capacity also. Wind is not a reliable option, and utility-scale solar has issues due to the high latitude and punishing winters.
  
  The power station at Lingan is ancient in terms of design, but the 4 units there have a capacity of 600MW (150MW ea). The outlook for this station has been bleak for many years and 2 of the units are already on a retirement schedule. The station at Point Aconi is much newer but capacity is only around 200MW if I recall correctly. The major issue for both is that the economy of Sydney (ex-mining town) is already very poor. Closing either, or both of these stations would be very detrimental to an area that already has serious economic and drug abuse problems. Conversion to natural gas firing is unlikely, the infrastructure isn't there like it is in the Halifax/Dartmouth area.
  
  These two stations are economically questionable as-is, since coal is imported by barge. However, they have continued to endure since they are needed to supply power if the lines to other provinces are down for some reason. Keep in mind that the overland lines can and do experience failures during severe winter weather, and a large portion of the population relies on electricity to stay warm during the winter. Resistance heating is uncommon, but most heating systems rely on forced air or pumped hot water which requires electricity to operate. To fill the supply eliminated by taking Nova Scotia's coal plants offline, you would need either additional HV connections to other provinces, or you would need more natural gas power in the Halifax area. Either option would cost at least $1B. Add to that the economic issues of Sydney, and shutting down all the coal power in Nova Scotia becomes a much more difficult problem than most people realize.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
23. Re:Coal in Canada? by pipingguy · 2016-11-22 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, yes. The nebulous "externalized costs" that can be, well, just about anything that can be dreamt up as an excuse to discredit any type of energy generation. Sort of like how legitimate business deductions/expenses become "subsidies" when they are employed by an industry that the enviros don't approve of.
24. Re:Coal in Canada? by Mashiki · 2016-11-22 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot one of the biggest reasons of large hydro bills in Ontario, and it wasn't the switch away from coal. The debt retirement charge where we, the customer, got to pay off the debt of Ontario Hydro when it went private and was broken up into Hydro One and all the other various utilities. And not only did we get to pay off that debt, we got to do it twice because instead of putting that money towards the debt the first time the provincial government used it for other things.
  Bzzt. Ontario hasn't had a debt retirement charge on it's bill in almost half a decade. Removing the coal plants caused a small spike in prices. The green energy programs caused a huge spike because the rate they were paying were between 0.40-0.92kWh into the grid due to FIT programs. Where as nuke, hydro and NG are under 0.07kWh in production costs.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
25. Re:Coal in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-24 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  New Brunswick has a nuclear power plant as well called Point Lepreau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Lepreau_Nuclear_Generating_Station
  It is the ONLY nuclear power plant in the world to be "refurbished", its so risky that experts from other countries are coming over to watch and study what we are doing. I know a few people that have done work there, one of them now has permanent liver damage from mistakenly being "locked in" the reactor. I can't even make this stuff up. This is going to be a shitshow of epic proportions.
Niggas with Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:10 · Score: -1

True story my niggas
Linux turned my hood gay
Was straight with Windows
But turned queer that very day
Kicked a dork's ass at school
Stole all his shit, white boy couldn't stop me
Brought a Linux DVD back to the projects
Installed Ubuntu on a 486
Real niggas can't handle this shit
Downloadin' gay porn on dial up
Cause food stamps don't pay for DSL
All mah white hoes left me
Read Slashdot, then beat off
While all mah niggas stood round and watched
Turned me gay that very day
All the fault of Linux and white boys
Hey MightyMartian, wanna fuck?
Hey Rei, wanna fuck?
Hey drinkypoo, wanna fuck?
Hey PopeRatzo, wanna fuck?
Hey creimer, wanna fuck?
Finger and grep my nigga wood
Filled my hard drive with gay shit
Til slash can't hold no more shit
Stole a drive from Best Buy
Filled a T B with guy on guy action
Soon all my niggas dropped their guns
And held their guns watchin' mah screen
Niggas love this gay shit
All cause I stole some Linux
Turned me gay that very day
All the fault of Linux and white boys
Hey MightyMartian, wanna fuck?
Hey Rei, wanna fuck?
Hey drinkypoo, wanna fuck?
Hey PopeRatzo, wanna fuck?
Hey creimer, wanna fuck?
Finger and grep my nigga wood
All mah gay niggas on Slashdot now
Workin it just like the haiku
Stole a Yoda doll and some K Y
Makin goatses like I make rap
Suckin it like Treblack
Turn the projects to lemon party
Niggas suckin and shootin
Ain't got time for Windows no more
Turned me gay that very day
All the fault of Linux and white boys
Hey MightyMartian, wanna fuck?
Hey Rei, wanna fuck?
Hey drinkypoo, wanna fuck?
Hey PopeRatzo, wanna fuck?
Hey creimer, wanna fuck?
Finger and grep my nigga wood
Suck it niggas!
Linux turned my niggas gay
1. Re:Niggas with Linux by PopeRatzo · 2016-11-21 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Finger and grep my nigga wood
  Suck it niggas!
  Trump 2020.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re: Niggas with Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  That's quite good, funny too. You must expend a lot of thought on this stuff.
3. Re:Niggas with Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  "Trump 2020."
  Highly doubtful.
4. Re:Niggas with Linux by gtall · 2016-11-21 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  After Americans find he's sold the roads, bridges, etc. from his infrastructure "expenditure" to companies (and given them tax reductions for the privilege of owning these assets), it isn't clear he'll have a mandate for anything except the retirement home...which he'll have built for himself at government expense and for which he'll charge admission for visits.
I don't buy it. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:12 · Score: 0

maybe for producing power for Canada. But they'll keep the coal-fired plants for selling power to the US, and probably get a smokin' deal [no pun intended] for doing so from DT.
1. Re:I don't buy it. by galabar · 2016-11-21 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:12 · Score: -1

We sure need higher energy costs because of the global warming scam. The Earth isn't getting warmer, and the weather proves it. As I write this post, it's snowing heavily outside and there's over a foot of snow on the ground. Now, I'm sure I'll be censored to -1 as a troll, but that's because science that goes against the groupthink isn't welcome here.
1. Re: Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  And here in Saskatchewan (the one province against these measures) the temperature is 10âf above normal and we're getting rain when we've usually had a foot of snow. Funny.
2. Re:Great, just what we need... by MightyMartian · 2016-11-21 12:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think you should be modded "-1 fucking ignorant moron".
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re: Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
4. Re: Great, just what we need... by MightyMartian · 2016-11-21 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes, Saskatchewan has the last pseudo-skeptic Premier in the country. Of course, the pseudo-skeptics like Postmedia (the Canadian oil industry's advertising branch masquerading as a newspaper chain) is cheering for Trump to kill the US's involvement in the Paris agreement, and naturally insisting "Well, there's no point to Canada fighting climate change, because the US won't".
  Meanwhile, the very same newspaper chain is reporting that the Arctic is 20 degrees warmer than normal for this time of year.
  I keep thinking that some point really soon the mounting evidence of serious climate shifts will override even the hardest critics, but then again, AGW pseudoskepticism has become a sort of a cult of its own, which follows the same bizarre and idiotic credo of the Creationists, both groups declaring almost every other day "Any day now, that nasty scientific theory I hate is going to be disproven."
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5. Re:Great, just what we need... by khallow · 2016-11-21 12:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Looking out my window I see frozen nitrogen falling like snow into a darkness that has never felt the warmth of a star. This global warming is a lie!
  
  Wait... wrong channel.
  
  I see sandworms. Yep, global warming.
6. Re: Great, just what we need... by Tough+Love · 2016-11-21 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
  It's a good thing until it turns into drought.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
7. Re:Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  I think you should be modded "-1 fucking ignorant moron".
  Minor gripe here, he should be modded "-1 gelded ignorant moron" that way he won't pass on the stupid to the next generation. Other than that I agree with you completely.
8. Re: Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you're in the tropics, winter without snow is never a good thing. Snow is beautiful, baby! Six months of freezing drizzle is the worst thing ever.
9. Re: Great, just what we need... by ShanghaiBill · 2016-11-21 12:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
  By many measures, Canada and Russia are the biggest "winners" from global warming. They benefit from warmer temps, longer growing seasons, more land in the cultivation zone, etc. So it is a bit ironic that Canada is making commitments to reduce CO2, while America (a big net loser) is backsliding.
10. Re:Great, just what we need... by barc0001 · 2016-11-21 12:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  > as I write this post, it's snowing heavily outside and there's over a foot of snow on the ground.
  So because it's cold somewhere, global warming doesn't exist, excellent logic. Countervailing point: When I moved to Vancouver 30 years ago nobody needed air conditioning and winters saw about 1-2 weeks of snow. The last 10 years there's been annual runs on all stores in the summer where they can't keep air conditioners in stock, and I haven't seen a single flake on the ground in 6 years.
  However, as you wrote that post it is also TWENTY DEGREES warmer than it should be in the arctic.
  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/north-pole-20-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends
  Note, that's also the National Post, the right wing rag of Canada, so if THEY are publishing it, there must be some fire behind that smoke.
11. Re:Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  I guess it's a tribute to your prowess that I can't tell whether your post is trolling or sarcasm.
12. Re:Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  As I write this post, it's snowing heavily outside and there's over a foot of snow on the ground.
  Looking out your window also proves that the world if flat you ignorant twat.
13. Re: Great, just what we need... by skids · 2016-11-21 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  When the fossil fuel dividends finally start to dry up due to more and more competitive renewables, so will much of the yelling fade. The only ones left will be the poor tools who were zealots without getting paid for it.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
14. Re: Great, just what we need... by ClickOnThis · 2016-11-21 12:56 · Score: 2
  
  I keep thinking that some point really soon the mounting evidence of serious climate shifts will override even the hardest critics, but then again, AGW pseudoskepticism has become a sort of a cult of its own, which follows the same bizarre and idiotic credo of the Creationists, both groups declaring almost every other day "Any day now, that nasty scientific theory I hate is going to be disproven."
  I think that calling them pseudoskeptics bestows too much grace on them. What they really are is anti-science denialists.
  And they (like the Creationists) are not waiting for their least-favorite scientific theory to be disproven. They simply reject the parts of science that are inconvenient to them.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
15. Re:Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know where the hell you've been in Vancouver because I live there as well. It hasn't snowed much in a couple of years but a few years go I was shoveling a foot of snow every week out of my driveway. Weather comes and goes.
16. Re: Great, just what we need... by haruchai · 2016-11-21 14:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't live there, but it sounds like a good thing.
  By many measures, Canada and Russia are the biggest "winners" from global warming. They benefit from warmer temps, longer growing seasons, more land in the cultivation zone, etc. So it is a bit ironic that Canada is making commitments to reduce CO2, while America (a big net loser) is backsliding.
  A lot of Russia is trapped, frozen methane and an increasing amount of it is thawing and venting. Not a good thing if it increases. Canada has been seeing more & larger forest fires and coupled with the die-off of trees from infestation, wildfires are going to get worse over time.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
17. Re: Great, just what we need... by haruchai · 2016-11-21 14:40 · Score: 2
  
  "They simply reject the parts of science that are inconvenient to them"
  I keep hoping some of them will find gravity inconvenient.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
18. Re: Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  The north is mostly rock covered in a little dirt, not helpful for growing crops. If and when the perms frost will melt, it's going to release a ton of green gases as well. As for warmer temps, it will lead to less snowfall and in turn more arid summer with water shortages for the crops.
19. Re:Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  And as I look out the window I see blasting sunshine and 40C* temperatures, so I can only conclude that your part of the planet must have snapped off and is now drifting somewhere out past pluto. Either that or we're in different hemispheres, but that's probably just crazy unscientific groupthink eh?
  *100+F or some-such in archaic units.
20. Re:Great, just what we need... by Mashiki · 2016-11-21 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Note, that's also the National Post, the right wing rag of Canada, so if THEY are publishing it, there must be some fire behind that smoke.
  National Post hasn't been right-wing for almost 3 years. Just a FYI. They decided to start pushing lefty agendas and people are fleeing in droves from the paper. Just like they've fled Toronto Star and Globe and Mail. NAPO in it's wisdom decided to even double down, and subscriber and page views continue to drop.
  I live in Ontario, we've got 2cm on the ground you're welcome to take. Then again, you dig back through the historical records and you'll quickly find that your weather is normal. The snow was not. Just a heads up though, plotting actual nominal weather for BC is pretty hard, being that most of the data is less then 150 years old.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
21. Re: Great, just what we need... by bestweasel · 2016-11-21 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Weather is not climate and Global warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets warmer all the time; the term "climate change" is better as it discourages such misunderstandings.
22. Re: Great, just what we need... by Bartles · 2016-11-21 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  I thought you science-y people always tell us knuckledraggers not to equate weather with climate. Which is it?
23. Re: Great, just what we need... by jandersen · 2016-11-21 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  They benefit from warmer temps, longer growing seasons, more land in the cultivation zone, etc.
  I wouldn't be so fast at calling that simply benefits - when the permafrost thaws, it causes a large number of issues, such as soil instability, ecological upheavals etc etc, not to mention the potentially huge release of methane from gas hydrates and other sources that are now kept frozen. Warmer climate may sound good, but there will be a transition period in which things are going to look grim, and it won't be over in a few years - it can probably go on for centuries.
24. Re: Great, just what we need... by gtall · 2016-11-21 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, we more or less assume you'll come to accept evolution to some degree, but it is clear being "knuckledraggers", it hasn't yet happened for you.
25. Re: Great, just what we need... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-21 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is the biggest nonsense you ever wrote.
  Spring starts how many days earlier in Canada and Russia? One day? Two days?
  What about winter? Yes winter is significantly later in terms of temperature. But not regarding daylight.
  And the extended 'warmths' is irrelevant: harvest time is when harvest time is.
  In other words: the climate change has no effect right now on food production. Perhaos in 20 years when we can plant differnet crops that fitt the new climate and has a better yield.
  But I doubt it. Limiting factor in the far north is sunlight, not temperature.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
26. Re: Great, just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Uhhhhh. What? /facepalm
27. Re: Great, just what we need... by fred6666 · 2016-11-22 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  we call this not being selfish.
28. Re: Great, just what we need... by colenski · 2016-11-22 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  Albertan here. No, global warming is bad for us. In the south, where a lot of land is cultivated for hay and animal feed, it's been a dustbowl, there were news stories about ranchers selling off their cows for pennies on the dollar, otherwise they would starve to death. In the west, the warmer temperatures mean that the pine beetle has breached the mountains and is now in Alberta forests, this bug kills pine trees dead, in Yoho there are vast forests that have been killed by the beetle. The bug is kept in check naturally by cold temperatures.
  
  In the north, where there are forests larger than some American states, forest fires unlike anything we have ever recorded has ripped through the area and one city, 60.000 people were forced to evacuate as a forest fire leveled 20% of the city, Canada's most expensive natural disaster.
  
  In the central region, where I live, farmers are just now finishing pulling in their crops because of unseasonable rain and general crap weather.
  
  In my city, there is huge concern over increased rainfall because our infrastructure was never designed for it. The city recently released previously restricted flood plain plans and I found out that my house is on the very tip of a giant lake that would appear in the 1 in 100 year storm scenario, and all of my neighbors across the street would be underwater. We are expecting the 1 in 100 year storm any old day now, next July is a likely date.
  
  Given a choice, any Albertan would go back to the way things were.
29. Re: Great, just what we need... by MightyMartian · 2016-11-22 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  The entire Arctic circle being warmer isn't merely a weather disturbance.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
30. Re: Great, just what we need... by Bartles · 2016-11-22 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit.
No such thing as global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:16 · Score: -1

We're actually headed for another ice age, and the real scientific evidence proves it. There's no such thing as global warming, and it's obvious that the Earth isn't getting warmer. The scam has been created by those who stand to profit from their investments in "renewable" energy, including scientists and liberal leaders.
1. Re:No such thing as global warming by MightyMartian · 2016-11-21 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, we're not heading for another ice age, and no "real scientific evidence" proves it.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:No such thing as global warming by thinkwaitfast · 2016-11-21 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Because there is still ice at the poles, we are still in an ice age.
3. Re:No such thing as global warming by Tough+Love · 2016-11-21 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  Your own private definition of "ice age"? Suggest you try this one instead: ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are in an interglacial period
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
4. Re:No such thing as global warming by thinkwaitfast · 2016-11-21 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that is the exact thing I was trying to say (from memory reading it a long time ago. IANAC).
5. Re:No such thing as global warming by thinkwaitfast · 2016-11-21 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  And to continue the quote from wikipedia...the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.
Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:20 · Score: 0

Coal is the lame duck. It should be easy to get rid off it.
Natural Gas? No way we are giving it up. Imagine heating up all these homes in the winter with anything other than natural gas.
1. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by fiannaFailMan · 2016-11-21 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The UK switched to gas years ago. It was Thatcher and her successor John Major who phased out the British coal industry since it was uneconomical. Odd that in America the preservation of coal is seen as a conservative ideal, whereas in the UK it was the left that was trying to keep it alive in the interests of the workers. I guess the definition of conservative in America must require anything that beats the crap out of the environment whether it pays its way or not.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
2. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by MightyMartian · 2016-11-21 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because there's no other way at all to heat a home...
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Tough+Love · 2016-11-21 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Coal is the lame duck. It should be easy to get rid off it. Natural Gas? No way we are giving it up. Imagine heating up all these homes in the winter with anything other than natural gas.
  Natural gas emits about half the greenhouse gas as coal per thermal unit and burns considerably cleaner, but is still a problem.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
4. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by skids · 2016-11-21 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well, one could just feed upgraded biogas into the system.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
5. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by wchin · 2016-11-21 12:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's actually not a conservative thing. It's that the Republican Party, which is sort-of conservative, is controlled by a few monied elite that have significant fossil fuel interests. Therefore, in the U.S., fossil fuels = conservative cause, but not because it has anything to do with actual conservative ideology.
6. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by ShanghaiBill · 2016-11-21 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Odd that in America the preservation of coal is seen as a conservative ideal
  That is just political pandering. Coal is dying because of simple economics. It can't compete with cheap shale gas, and Trump can't do a damn thing about that. The coal miners in Appalachia need to get on the bus and move somewhere that has jobs.
7. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-11-21 13:01 · Score: 2
  
  The UK switched to gas years ago. It was Thatcher and her successor John Major who phased out the British coal industry since it was uneconomical. Odd that in America the preservation of coal is seen as a conservative ideal, whereas in the UK it was the left that was trying to keep it alive in the interests of the workers. I guess the definition of conservative in America must require anything that beats the crap out of the environment whether it pays its way or not.
  No, it was just a cynical pumping of the people who may have lost their jobs by the conservatives. They aren't going to get their jobs back, but thanks for the vote. Also, the people who own the Conservative politicians have a pretty big self interest in preserving coal use, so its a core principle.
  Regardless, automation has done more to eliminate coal jobs than anything else. What once upon a time took armies of men, digging with pickaxes and dinky cars is now accomplished by a few people.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by PopeRatzo · 2016-11-21 13:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Coal is dying because of simple economics.
  The joke's on you. We're about to have CLEAN COAL starting January 21.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
9. Re: Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  "Thermal unit"? Is that a fancy way if, saying degrees?
10. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Geothermal still requires more electricity than natural gas. The air movement is the same but gas doesn't run a heat pump.
  Total energy input favors geothermal though.
11. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by sydbarrett74 · 2016-11-21 13:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  but not because it has anything to do with actual conservative ideology.
  Actually, there are those in the Republican party who view environmentalism as a New Age, satanic cult. They equate it to a worship of Mother Earth, and therefore view it as inherently evil and unGodly.
  
  --
  'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
12. Re: Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  "Thermal unit"? Is that a fancy way if, saying degrees?
  No, it's a way imprecise way of saying some arbitrary units "thermal energy" (e.g., joules, btus, calories, etc)
  Of course if you don't know the difference between energy and temperature, well... Oh what the heck just google it...
13. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Minupla · 2016-11-21 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  I increasingly believe /. needs a "+1 True, but depressing"
  
  --
  On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
14. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by CanadianMacFan · 2016-11-21 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I love ground source heat pumps, I really do, but they are expensive to install. Especially in an urban setting. Last year I replaced my natural gas furnace and I looked into the options available to me. The ground source heat pump was about five times the price of a lower priced high end natural gas furnace and A/C when you added the cost of having a company come in and drill the holes for the loops. The newer air source heat pumps which are now able to handle most of Eastern Ontario winters are about twice the price of furnace and A/C but then you have to add in the cost of backup furnace for the short times when the temperatures are too cold for the pump.
  If you are building a house in an area that doesn't have a natural gas connection then the ground source heat pump becomes more viable. It depends on the cost to hook up the house to the pipeline. The other option is if a builder is putting up a bunch of homes at once. They can get the drilling company to come in and do all of the holes at one time or do some sort of centralized system which would spread the cost out.
  The one thing that I hate to see is the large buildings that don't use a ground source heat pump. I would love to see it mandated for them to use the heat pump.
15. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 17:38 · Score: 0
  
  I understand you're joking, but even if Trump somehow made coal popular and competitive again, it would be mostly machines doing the mining instead of humans.
  So if coal really did make a comeback, it would be be horrible for the environment (both from mining and burning), but wouldn't help with the jobs!
16. Re: Just switch to Natural Gas by bestweasel · 2016-11-21 18:34 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry we passed peak Truth a while ago and are rapidly entering the post-truth era, the Postfactocene.
17. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 20:02 · Score: 0
  
  This with coal may be true or not depending on how you look at it but the biggest impact in saving the climate had one child policy in Chinaof. 1B of Chinese that have not been born had bigger impact that anything else. There is virtue in using other ways of producing electricity and plastic for our society but while we try this we should also ensure that women in MENA countries take the pill. This may help not only with climate but with constant slaughter there.
18. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  Burning COAL can never be clean. The Chemistry makes this impossible.
  The USA and especially DUMP are totally wrong.
  Just wait for the first nation to disappear under water and the Multi-trillion $$$$ law suits to hit Donald Dump.
  The rest of the world are moving away from Coal as an energy source as fast as possible. So he's right and eveyone else includint the Chinese are wrong?
  Better build that wall and put a roof over the whole of the USA so that you can't export your pollution to eveyone else.
19. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by PeeAitchPee · 2016-11-21 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  And it'll be YUUUGE.
20. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by dunkelfalke · 2016-11-21 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's what "insightful" was supposed to be.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
21. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by painandgreed · 2016-11-22 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Odd that in America the preservation of coal is seen as a conservative ideal
  That is just political pandering. Coal is dying because of simple economics.
  So was slavery. Doesn't meant the South won't go to war over it.
22. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by pipingguy · 2016-11-22 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Who are the 'monied elite' in the Democratic party?
23. Re:Just switch to Natural Gas by ShanghaiBill · 2016-11-22 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  So was slavery. Doesn't meant the South won't go to war over it.
  The South lost the war, and slavery ended. The same will happen with coal.
sell coal to China by turkeydance · 2016-11-21 12:20 · Score: 0

export the pollution but keep the money
I wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:27 · Score: 0

The Liberals of Canada would just fuckin off themselves already. Ditto for the Ontario liberals.
1. Re: I wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  Wierdo. Go slap your mother around.
2. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  If Harper hadn't been such a liar and a thief, we wouldn't have wound up with the boy prince globalist puppet.
  Why is it always a choice between thieving cronyism and batshit insane, freedom-hating, totalitarian leftists?
3. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  If Harper hadn't been such a liar and a thief, we wouldn't have wound up with the boy prince globalist puppet.
  OTOH, I do look forward to seeing the first time Trudeau and Trump meet...imagining Zoolander meeting Archie Bunker...should be some solid entertainment there!
Even the Chinese have had enough by rsilvergun · 2016-11-21 12:29 · Score: 3, Informative

See here. So good luck with that. There are limits to the amount of pollution folks will tolerate. China and India have long since reached those limits.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Even the Chinese have had enough by slew · 2016-11-21 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  See here. So good luck with that. There are limits to the amount of pollution folks will tolerate. China and India have long since reached those limits.
  Given the every increasing pollution levels in Delhi, I don't know if India has actually reached their limit yet...
  As a depressing example...
2030 will be 3 elections away ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 12:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes ... let's keep kicking those environmental issues down the road. Fourteen years should give plenty of opportunity to blame some other government when this (and many other distant promises) don't actually happen ...
1. Re:2030 will be 3 elections away ... by hawguy · 2016-11-21 12:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes ... let's keep kicking those environmental issues down the road. Fourteen years should give plenty of opportunity to blame some other government when this (and many other distant promises) don't actually happen ...
  If the the new Administration does ignore Global Warming (and indeed, rolls back the paltry reductions that have already been put into place), I wonder if that opens up the USA to huge reparation payments down the road when other countries are forced to make huge expenditures due to the climate change?
2. Re:2030 will be 3 elections away ... by CaptainDork · 2016-11-21 12:56 · Score: 2
  
  It's all moot.
  Canada shot itself in the foot on this one.
  Replacing coal is very good for the photo-ops, but no leader is using shale oil fields as a backdrop.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
3. Re:2030 will be 3 elections away ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  Don't ever force a militant nation into a corner. That is how WWII happened.
  The only reparations the USA will ever pay if forced to do so will be done via vitrification.
4. Re:2030 will be 3 elections away ... by thegarbz · 2016-11-22 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well they could just turn them off now, but then how will you power whatever device you used to post your self righteous comment?
5. Re:2030 will be 3 elections away ... by rhazz · 2016-11-22 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Would you rather they made easily disprovable claims that they can have it all done in 4 years? Changes of this scale don't happen quickly, and it sure as hell can't be paid for with only 4 years of government revenue.
Nope by rsilvergun · 2016-11-21 12:57 · Score: 2

not unless they have more bombs than us anyway. Reparation payments are made by folks who lack military and/or economic power. The United States has both. Given the enormous natural resources we have that's not likely to change. We're also the only nation with a proper navy (though China's catching up).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  It's not quite because of that. You have to be party to some binding agreement which provides a framework for fines and such. The future U.S. will simply never sign such an agreement. We're even going to pull out of the Paris Agreement, as well as stop billions in payments to UN climate change programs.
  It can't be forced on us, because of the size of our economy, as you noted. Sanctions against us would hurt the rest of the world even more.
  In any event, compared to the pollution emitted by cargo ships and tankers, coal plants and cars are nothing. No one with a public voice even mentions doing something about the big ships. The global economy depends on them too much.
2. Re:Nope by AmiMoJo · 2016-11-21 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  It will be like Trump's wall. If you want other good trade deals or access to resources, you have to pay to mitigate climate change first.
  Actually it's likely that the EU will just force the US to clean up anyway, like it did with China. Chinese companies had to become RoHS compliant and reduce their carbon emissions in order to sell to the EU market, and if Trump wants the US to become a big exporter of manufactured goods again then they will have to meet the standards set in other countries.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Nope by jabuzz · 2016-11-21 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ultimately the USA needs to export. If the other countries EU, Japan, China etc. demand something for access to their markets the USA will have little choice but to comply.
  As an example show me a laptop that is not RoHS compliant that you can buy in the good old don't need to listen to anyone else USA?
This should be a global effort. by Gravis+Zero · 2016-11-21 13:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Coal is the least efficient and highest polluting method of power generation in the commercial market and everyone should be trying to eliminate it everywhere on the planet. If there was ever one method of power generation to eliminate, it's coal power.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:This should be a global effort. by KBentley57 · 2016-11-21 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree with your sentiment, coal burning power plants are more efficient than solar arrays. Coal plants by themselves often average between 30-40% efficiency. Silicon based solar arrays have a lab-value maximum right now at ~25% efficiency. It gets even lower for the thin-film based solar cells, such as those based on ITO and CdTe, 10-16%.
2. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsensical comment is nonsensical.
  Solar efficiency has nothing to do with coal efficiency. One has the input fall from the sky and the other has to be dug up and burned.
3. Re:This should be a global effort. by KBentley57 · 2016-11-21 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Explain how it is nonsensical. I was simply refuting the claim that "Coal is the least efficient method of power generation in the commercial market." The numbers I stated are found in many different sources. I've also worked on photovoltaics.
4. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  Toe the party line comrade. Facts are not true if that is what the groupthink wants.
  Nevermind where are we going to get the fly ash and other chemicals needed for concrete and modern ceramics if we stop getting it from coal. We might have to keep burning it anyway or lose modern concrete as a technology, but so long as the coal isn't burned for power, all will be considered good.
5. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Efficiency of coal plants is far more important than efficiency in solar. You have to dig up coal: solar just shines. Burning coal is bad for the environment: collecting solar is neutral (and actively good when it displaces the burning of coal). Burning coal releases particulates that are bad for human health: collecting solar does not. Burning coal requires a proportionally large coal-fired power plant full of lots of moving parts and really hot things that wear out and require constant maintenance: collecting solar requires no moving parts and a large number of nearly static objects requiring very little maintenance other than the occasional clean.
  Efficiency in solar only matters up to the point where it is good enough to make solar feasible, and we've already reached that point. Efficiency in coal is a major issue now and will only become more so into the future.
6. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  It is nonsensical, but not for the reason it's efficiency was misrepresented. It's nonsensical because since it doesn't pollute at the point of generation it is acceptable and good for it to be widespread (hell, give me 7% solar shingles for the price of asphalt and I'll buy the inverters and do my whole roof). It's a loss if you're trying to put them in a centralized generation plant (though if you use a concentrator... I don't really understand why the desert solar plant isn't running full-tilt on sunlight to make molten sodium, but it it should've been able to hit the same efficiencies as a coal plant).
  Captcha: optimum - it really depends on what your optimizing for....
7. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  The first response to the OP wasn't nonsensical. In fact, it was exemplary of clear writing, clear thinking, and data. OP said "because A & B, then X, Y, Z". The respondent said he agreed with the pollution part and the need to eliminate coal, but pointed out that A was flat out wrong.
  So here you are ranting in ill constructed sentences about what we need to do with coal plants, which no one here has disputed at all. Then you go off on this loss issue, which no one has mentioned in the thread, and which you don't really explain. Loss of efficiency? Then you trail off into your second unnecessary parenthetical.
  Then you say things like "It's nonsensical because since it doesn't pollute at the point of generation it is acceptable.." What's acceptable? The lower efficiency? And how does this relate at all to some glib remark that the first reply was nonsensical?
  If your point, which is completely unclear, is that the efficiency issue is irrelevant to the greater argument, it's not "nonsense," you just don't find it relevant. Moreover, no one here, again, has disagreed that coal causes pollution, and that we need to phase it out.
  You wrote a mess. Your thinking is a complete mess. What the hell is your major malfunction?
8. Re:This should be a global effort. by munch117 · 2016-11-21 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Coal converts 30-40% of the energy in the expended fuel to electricity. Solar converts a lot more than 100% of the energy in the expended fuel to electricity. Solar is more efficient.
  Those 10-25% measure something else, which also happens to be a kind of efficiency, but that doesn't make it a meaningful comparison.
9. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  When considering solar efficiency, one must consider the raw material extraction and manufacturing energy, which are a much higher percentage (Construction MWh per Lifetime MWh) for PV construction than they are for conventional power plant construction.
  Then there is fuel extraction, which is higher for coal. Efficiency is important for that portion of coal. But efficiency itself isn't a good comparison if you are really concerned about CO2 production. The only thing that should matter is CO2 per MWh for construction & production, and then cost (which must consider intermittency if you are talking about scaling).
10. Re:This should be a global effort. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  It ignores the efficiency of photosynthesis used to create the coal reserves in the first place.
mod dpown by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 13:02 · Score: -1

with THOUSANDS of are having trouble - Netcraft has suffering *BSD maintained that too right now>. I tried, Of playing your Brain. It is the Acoounts for less
Brakes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 14:12 · Score: 0

Look, all the *other* cars ahead of us have hit that brick wall there, so we have more road to ourselves. Why should we apply the brake if we have so much road to ourselves..... crash. Damn momentum, the brakes are there to SLOW DOWN the rate of increase, they don't bring it to a dead stop at some magic place.
Why would it stop magically at the point where Canada gains more fertile land?
How would Canada stop sea rise flooding its cities even before this magic level?
Wishful thinking?
Hydrocarbon exports by galabar · 2016-11-21 14:27 · Score: 1

Do they count hydrocarbon exports in this? If I'm not burning any myself, but I'm selling them to others, is that any better?
1. Re:Hydrocarbon exports by galabar · 2016-11-21 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not Enough by JimSadler · 2016-11-21 15:35 · Score: 1

France and Germany are removing all fossil fuel not just coal. Canada needs a deeper commitment as does the US. We also need to be planting tens of millions of trees and bamboo as well. Conditions in California are so bad that we will probably have to find unusual methods to irrigate forests in California, as they are rapidly losing all of their forests. But let's all chant together. There is no global warming ! After all Frankentrump has declared it so. Or is it Trumpenstein?
1. Re:Not Enough by nojayuk · 2016-11-21 23:41 · Score: 2
  
  Germany has no intention of eliminating fossil fuel burning in the near or even the far future. At the moment they generate 40% of their electricity demand from coal and lignite. They *hope* to have reduced their coal and lignite consumption by 2050 but it's a big industry and employer, and they have billions of tonnes of extractable lignite resources within their own borders so it's not going to disappear completely. They have legislated the shutdown of their non-fossil nuclear power plants by 2023 and that means they will have to find another 15% or so of replacement generating capacity when that happens. A lot of that coming shortfall could be covered by burning more coal.
2. Re:Not Enough by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-22 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  You are an idiot.
  Germay originally planned to be CO2 till 2030, that goal is now postponed till 240 or 2060.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
3. Re:Not Enough by nojayuk · 2016-11-22 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  There is zero evidence that Germany plans to abandon burning lignite any time this century, never mind 2040 or 2060. There have been lots of fanciful announcements about renewables taking over and the end of fossil CO2 emissions but the facts don't agree. Ten years ago Germany generated about 40% of its electricity from coal and lignite, about 290 TWhrs. In 2015 it generated about 40% of its electricity from coal and lignite, about 270 TWhrs. The increase in renewables generation over that period has been balanced by a reduction in nuclear non-carbon baseload generation, from about 25% to 15%. That 15% is going away totally by 2023 when the last nuclear power station will be closed by government order. Either the Germans spend a lot more on building out their renewable fleet, improving their grid to handle the fluctuating supply, add large amounts of storage and start replacing their first-generation wind turbines and solar installations which are reaching end-of-life, or they burn more lignite. My bet is on the latter.
4. Re:Not Enough by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-23 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  There is zero evidence that Germany plans to abandon burning lignite any time this century, never mind 2040 or 2060.
  Yeah ... in your dreams. No idea why you post nonsense like the rest of your post.
  and start replacing their first-generation wind turbines and solar installations which are reaching end-of-life
  E.g. what is that supposed to mean? Wind turbines are replaced regularly and solar plants don't have an end of life.
  If you want accurate numbers I would suggest to improve your google foo, or check this: https://www.fraunhofer.de/ you can switch to english and check e.g. germans energy production ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
5. Re:Not Enough by nojayuk · 2016-11-23 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Near as I could figure it, Fraunhofer doesn't do coal, they only offer renewables (solar and wind) so it's not relevant. Here's a result from Google showing in chart form the last ten years or so of German electricity production (2005 - 2014):
  http://energytransition.de/201...
  Over the ten year period shown in the first chart non-carbon-emitting green nuclear production is down, renewable production is up and CO2-emitting coal and lignite production is not changing very much. The lowest production was in 2008 and 2009 during a world-wide recession.
  As I said before, the non-carbon nuclear supply (currently about 95 TWh) is going away totally by government diktat in 2023. The projected increase in renewables will probably cover that loss in generating capacity (although renewables aren't a good replacement for baseload generation without lots of expensive storage or backstop fossil-carbon gas CCGT) but it means Germany will be still burning lignite in ten years time at the same rate it does today to keep the lights on. It's either that or freeze in the dark.
6. Re:Not Enough by angel'o'sphere · 2016-12-03 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Fraunhofer publishes figures about all energy production. Even if the titles in the publications usually say "renewable", it is always compared to the other forms of production, otherwise it would be meaningless.
  Nevertheless an interesting site/link.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
obama job killer by mOzone · 2016-11-21 15:56 · Score: 1

so setting up a 10-15 year game plan so its phased out and lowers job loss ...obama shoulda done this instead of dropping the hammer on a whole industry
1. Re:obama job killer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-21 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  I think Obama did have a long-term plan, but fracking beat him to the punch. Who's going to pay to upgrade a coal plant when it's only going to be cheaper than gas for a few more years?
  You may as well scrap the coal plant and invest in gas plants. Gas turbines are better than coal in many ways.
  Coal has to be burned to make heat, which converts water into steam, which turns a turbine to generate electricity. It takes a relatively long time to do that conversion, which means a coal plant takes a long time to ramp up or down its power output.
  Gas can be burned as a fuel in a turbine to directly generate electricity -- essentially a stationary jet engine -- which means that you can ramp up a gas turbine from 0MW to 300MW in just a few minutes. And then you can take the waste heat and use it to evolve steam for a secondary turbine. This is called "combined cycle", and is extremely efficient (sometimes over 60%).
  Back when gas was expensive you'd only run gas turbines to even out peak loads, but now that fracking has made it so cheap you can run it for base load and ditch your coal plants altogether.
  dom
2. Re:obama job killer by jabuzz · 2016-11-21 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  This a thousand times over. Nothing Obama did killed coal. Cheap fracked gas killed coal. Just like cheap North Sea gas killed coal in the UK.
  Heck it is cheaper to just burn the fracked gas instead of coal in a conventional coal plant than burn coal, let alone compete with a combined cycle gas plant.
  Unless you want to stop fracking for gas in the USA, and good luck with that, coal is never combing back.
3. Re:obama job killer by MoarSauce123 · 2016-11-22 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Coal from China or South Africa is also much cheaper than US coal. Rather than bank on dirty energy the coal mines should be refurbished to be used as hydro power stations. When there is excess power from wind and solar pump water from tanks in the depth of the mines to storage reservoirs at the top. When there is high demand or both wind and solar do not produce enough use the stored energy to generate power. This is not only the most effective means of storing energy that we have available today, it will also require the skills and expertise of miners to build and operate. I guess this is just too communist for the US.
If only Australia would follow suit by jonwil · 2016-11-21 16:12 · Score: 1

If only our government was smart and set some policy settings encouraging the building of renewables (we have plenty of places in this country that would be perfect for baseload solar setups plus wind power, biofuels, geothermal and more) rather than digging yet more coal out of the ground and burning it (or using coal seam gas which is almost as bad)
Don't worry... by MoarSauce123 · 2016-11-22 00:11 · Score: 1

... Trump will ramp up coal based energy production big time. Let's make America dirty again!
Based on what specific objective knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 02:19 · Score: 0

Hmm?
Blame Game by DarthVain · 2016-11-22 04:06 · Score: 1

Yes and no.
Perhaps a bit of a gamble that didn't pay off and perhaps it could have been implemented better, but the environmental impacts are real. Unfortunately so is the economic impacts. It isn't exactly short term thinking, but the negative impacts are. Could still see some longer term gain. What is at odds are those generation contracts that basically subsidize green generation in Ontario making it attractive to investors. The idea was to bring "green" jobs to Ontario. However most of the generation stations that are wind or solar have little staff outside of initial construction, and most of the material is produced outside of Ontario and imported in. Had they perhaps attached some strings as to number of jobs, or percentage of Ontario made material it might have been more effective.
At any rate, the entire blame can't be put on the Liberals (though another example of total blame might be the politically motivated gas plant scandal to the tune of 2 Billion I believe)... Power generation and specifically Hydro One (and whatever it was called before that) has been mismanaged by both political stripes over the years. Look at what the employees make at these "corporations" in addition to CEO and executive compensation... I recall long before the Liberals took power having to pay "debt repayments" as part of my bill which is ridiculous. The whole privatization of the industry by the Conservatives was a huge bungle, not to mention the distribution services that preyed on consumers so much that they actually had to make a law specifically to help consumers from being ripped off by private distribution companies.
So yeah, there is some blame to share, but the Liberal green strategy isn't the only cause, and at least as said there has been some positive environmental impacts.
Lastly, "putting farmers out of business"? Really. I doubt it. Is farming really that electrically intensive an operation? I know in Northern Ontario they made the same point about the forestry pulp and paper industry, which is a bit more credible as it is much more power intensive... However even with subsidies you have to wonder just how uncompetitive they are if their margins are so slim and perhaps while power increases highlight the issue, it is a bit more complicated than that.
1. Re:Blame Game by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  The whole privatization of the industry by the Conservatives was a huge bungle, not to mention the distribution services that preyed on consumers so much that they actually had to make a law specifically to help consumers from being ripped off by private distribution companies.
  The Liberals are the ones who are selling off the entirety of the controlling shares in Ontario Hydro. Part of their sales pitch is a guaranteed 9% yearly profit (I can't remember whether it was a net or gross profit guarantee). So not only are they selling off their stock, but they are also stating that the regulators will approve yearly rate increases to ensure that 9% profit. Add to that the wonderful distribution charge the government regulators have approved that effectively doubles the hydro bill of all rural customers, and you can understand why Ontario has either the first or second most expensive hydro in Canada. Not bad for a "have" province with approximately 40% of the population of Canada. But wait. They're gonna stop taking the 8% tax from the HST, after repealing the 10% rebate they were giving people.
  I'm so glad I live in a nation where the government works for the populaces best interests, and not corporations.. :-( The least they could do is kiss me before fucking me.
2. Re:Blame Game by Mashiki · 2016-11-22 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  The liberals have been in power in Ontario over over 12 years. Yes, you can put all the blame directly on their shoulders for this. It was their actions to not change and re-regulate(never mind that my electricity bill in my co-op in FL is literally 1/3 of what I pay here), it was their actions to pass the "green energy act" it was their choice not to learn from places like Greece which did the same thing. Their electricity rates went through the roof, and those "green energy jobs" never materialized either. Never mind that electricity generation from NG, Hydro and Nuclear is literally pennies to make these days. Or that at those rates it's sold to the US. That Ontario has such a glut of electricity, that all these "green" feel good policies didn't need to happen in the first place. No this can all be laid directly at the Liberals feet.
  You apparently don't realize how much farming is an electricity intensive business. If you've got crops in the ground? Not so much. You have cattle, turkey, chicken, pigs or any other livestock? It's expensive. Now we're talking heat, cleanup, milking, storage of feed grains(including climate control) for them. Then the storage of animal waste, some of which can't be allowed to sit. Then that requires ponds with mixers, and on, and on, and on, and on.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:Blame Game by DarthVain · 2016-11-23 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I guess I was thinking framing in terms of "crops" not livestock, but even then compared to I'd say most other industries it isn't even near the top of the electricity consumers, even considering livestock and say milk production for example.
  As far as alternative sources to alternative sources :) Well again it isn't all that simple either. NG? Well there was the afore mentioned scandal which is totally on the Liberals, which more less caused the "retirement" of the leader. In that case it was of course a case of NIMBY and wanting to win votes for an election. Definitely showed a lack of character. Hydro is great, however it can only be located in certain places, most of which have already been tapped, and likely the ones that haven't are so far north you start running into access issues and distribution problems as the need is in the south where all the people are not the north. That leaves Nuclear. Ontario already leads Canada in that respect. However it is as bad or worse than Hydro One in terms of cronyism. Janitors make 90k a year, CEO and executives make millions. Hey I get you have to pay the technical people and you want the best people working in that regard, but it is still a bit much. Not only that it is well known that you pretty much need to be related to someone already working there to get a job. An interesting analysis would be on how many people within the industry are related family... At any rate the two big problems with Nuclear is the PR problem that it has, NIMBY and all that and the folks that would come out of the woodwork to kill any attempt by any government to implement anything, making it a very difficult political pill for any party to swallow. So it would take a lot of political fortitude to push that agenda. Likely the only thing more toxic to politicians would be to try and get rid of the Catholic school system... Second is the fact that while the energy generated is very cheap (some would argue about TCO), building a nuclear plant is very expensive and takes a very long time to do. Many billions of dollars and more the 10-15+ years construction. So while perhaps good for prudent planning, it isn't going to address any energy issues in the here and now, and it certainly doesn't help that it spans multiple political cycles which has its own BS political issues.
  Personally I like the alternative energy stuff, I think it adds a good mix of value, they did go a bit overboard with the subsidy pricing and 20 year contracts, as they take all the risk on themselves and are basically guaranteeing corporations money (which is where we are now). That said, we should (years ago) have been investing more heavily in nuclear and planning for more in the future. Wind and solar can only do so much and aren't always appropriate/relevant. I'm also unsure how bright it was for the Conservatives to sell off CANDU to a private company a few years back.
Canada has a lot of potential sustainable by pjv936 · 2016-11-22 04:09 · Score: 0

power source that it has not developed. If developed Canada could sell the excess to the US.
Good news but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-22 09:21 · Score: 0

Getting rid of coal is obviously good news, but somehow it feels like the government is throwing a bone to those pesky environmentalists so they keep shut while the oil industry happily carries on with its catastrophic exploitation of oil sands in Alberta and elsewhere...
Since when does theory push policy? by pgnas · 2016-11-22 18:46 · Score: 1

I can only imagine the reasoning behind running away from coal, how does one actually use the word sustainability and any other Technology other than coal? Scientists have worked tirelessly to produce clean burning coal plants and Cole is abundant, Coal employees people. If you look at this from a statistical standpoint and compare it against things like nuclear energy I think it is pretty clear that Coal is far more sustainable. I'm sure nuclear power is and option however with our government agencies being bought off regulating these companies is a challenge and they will only return as much as they have to into the business to maintain operations. The United States Nuclear Power Plants are aged and it is questionable that they have been maintained properly. One disaster at a nuclear power plant throws that whole sustainability equation out the window. Now let's look at solar energy now here's a joke, any of you people in technology have to be able to see that solar energy is a nightmare in proportions, It does not scale and is it expensive. Now, natural gas this is a wonderful resource, however this resource is absolutely destroying something far more precious than polar ice, it is a definite whereas, climate change and global warming is just a theory and that precious commodity is absolutely essential for life, that is water. Fracking for natural gas to which President Bush and Pres. Obama along with Dick Cheney (heavily invested in these companies) Open the floodgates with little to no oversight and regulation for this destructive form of extracting natural gas. These companies have been allowed to exploit our federal lands, OUR lands. If you want talk about sustainability, natural gas by means of Fracking, Will ultimately destroy nearly all of our natural aquifers and underground water supplies by polluting them with poisonous chemicals. THIS IS A FACT, this is happening right now and can be proven unlike this theory of global warming. It is time to look at what is really happening instead of having our heads in the clouds worrying about what may happen, listening to scientists who have been caught fudging numbers in order to have research results agree with the theory... I live in Milwaukee Wisconsin, Milwaukee sits beside one of the greatest natural resources we have, a great lake, Milwaukee is now a hub for freshwater research. Now, why in the world would people be investing in fresh water research? The reason is not global warming, The reason is that water is going to become scarce and has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with our obsession with weather modification and our destruction of our natural water supplies due to hydraulic fracturing or Fracking. We already see large freighters from other countries filling football field sized bladders and towing the freshwater out of the country, this practice began after our President relinquished the great lakes to the United Nations. So, Canada is going to see their way past coal power, good for them. How about we make some smart decisions instead of the hip and trendy decisions.