Solar and wind energy are not sustainable

[Anonymous]

The article also says this,...



quote: "Eight years ago, while researching who was behind an unscientific, misinformation campaign against farmed Canadian salmon, Krause "came across these three little words: oil sands Campaign" in the tax forms of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (which, ironically, made its billions from oil and gas)."



As a conservationist myself, false information about the environment worries me. Actually it GREATLY upsets me.



Both sides of politics are known to corrupt information.

I believe you are a genuine conservationist..



The international billionaires trying to keep Canada's oil from competing with OPEC, the USA, and Russia are not.

Well, there's certain groups trying to stop the united states from competing with OPEC as well, but they have been way less successful because their laws weren't written by fucking monkeys and bleeding hearts.

We elected a monkey.

[Anonymous]

"If we want to achieve our net-zero target for 2050, it's impossible to achieve it without nuclear," said Christyne Tremblay, deputy minister of Natural Resources Canada while discussing the convergence of nuclear power and hydrogen.



Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) will soon have a presence in Canada. Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan signed a co-operation agreement last year to develop SMRs, with the first expected to be online in 2028.



Not only would SMRs be able to backstop intermittent wind and solar power, they could also be used to produce green hydrogen through a thermochemical process being developed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, said panelists.



Wind and solar need a steady power backup supply, and in places like Germany and California, that has come from coal and natural gas.

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/2/nuclear-pave-path-net-zero-future-experts-say/?fbclid=IwAR1-dmsoaorcg_H3ob0g1mMj3i77Nmf-aTCBOKPmRfhZkEIWGBJVrxyIvDM">https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/ ... BJVrxyIvDM">https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/2/nuclear-pave-path-net-zero-future-experts-say/?fbclid=IwAR1-dmsoaorcg_H3ob0g1mMj3i77Nmf-aTCBOKPmRfhZkEIWGBJVrxyIvDM



SMR's will be part of the electricity mix in Canada. Unlike wind and solar, they don't require huge amounts of land and they don't require back up. We also don't need to use the world's limited supply or rare earth metals.

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12376104_888607877903019_8473365264485748523_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ohc=DvwDqUPU9J0AX9ardxX&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=59b17a14c33d08f2c5b077d9eb8593b2&oe=5EBF8D2E">

[Anonymous]

Why it makes sense to cancel wind and solar contracts in over-powered Ontario

Energy Minister Greg Rickford has been forced to defend the cost of cancelling 750 wind and solar contracts, but it's completely rational



The cost and source of Ontario's electrical power has been a hot topic for years, but happily for the PC government, it had dropped from the headlines. That is, until Energy Minister Greg Rickford was forced to defend the cost of cancelling 750 wind and solar contracts.



In Ontario, 86 per cent of power comes from emissions-free hydro and nuclear power.  Wind provides seven per cent of the province's electricity, with solar and biofuel contributing less than one per cent. Gas plants produce six per cent of power and act primarily as a backup for wind and solar, when it's not sunny or windy.



Ontario could introduce more wind and solar, but it would do nothing for emissions because that power would be replacing either hydro or nuclear. Besides, more wind in the province's baseline power supply would mean more natural gas needed for back up, too. In environmental terms, the PC government was inarguably right when it decided to cancel unneeded wind and solar projects.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randall-denley-it-makes-sense-to-cancel-wind-and-solar-contracts-in-over-powered-ontario-heres-why">https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randal ... -heres-why">https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randall-denley-it-makes-sense-to-cancel-wind-and-solar-contracts-in-over-powered-ontario-heres-why



The opposition Ontario NDP does not care about reducing emissions and definitely not saving Ontarians money. They want wind and solar subsidies to continue even when it makes no environmental or economic sense.

[Anonymous]

Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels, And That Makes Saving The Climate Harder And More Expensive



Solar and wind are more popular than nuclear —  by a lot.



As such, the thinking by those who recognize the need for nuclear has long been that we should mix together solar, wind, and nuclear in people's minds.



Around 2013, a friend asked me, "If we have nuclear, do we really even need solar and wind?"



"Of course not," I replied. "But you can't say that publicly."



I feared that if we told the whole truth we would be ostracized.



Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than the incumbent — and yet that's precisely what adding large amounts of solar and wind to the grid requires.



Moreover, past energy transitions delivered both decarbonization and "dematerialization" — less material throughput per unit of energy.



Places like France and Sweden have a few large power plants connected to cities by a few transmission lines. Material throughput is very low.



By contrast, a mixed system would require large amounts of solar and wind and thus far more power plants, transmission lines, and everything else required to provide reliable electricity.



In other words, going from energy-dense fuels to solar and wind requires the rematerialization of energy in the form of more land, materials, mining, storage, and waste.



Solar and wind are unreliable over months and years, not just hours. That means unfathomable quantities of electricity would need to be stored over months or years. Consider that:



It would take 696 storage centers the size of Tesla's in Australia to provide just four hours of backup power for the Australian grid — and cost $50 billion;

It would require 15,280 storage centers the size of Escondido to provide just four hours of backup power for the U.S. grid — at an estimated cost of $764 billion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/#8a2b8f321d40">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 2b8f321d40">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/#8a2b8f321d40



Solar and wind are reliant on natural gas and coal. Nuclear on the other hand is more energy dense than coal or natural gas and therefore can produce more energy on a smaller land footprint.

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/156979804_10157922220845869_6449743804673682021_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=G1AT9UIW39AAX9iiAiz&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=173dc162ca25bac6e54c1438efa28654&oe=6069A225">