Renewable energy may actually work in Canada. They have about 11 people per square mile. The UK has over 720 people per square mile so the total demand for energy is higher in the UK and the land is much more scarce.
For reference, the US is in between at around 91 people per square mile.
The federal government’s plan to eliminate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity generation by 2050 is impossible in practical terms.
To meet existing and future electricity demand with low-emitting or zero-emitting sources within the government’s timeline, Canada would need to rapidly build infrastructure on a scale never before seen in the country’s history.
For example:
• To generate enough electricity solely with solar power, we’d need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
• On wind power, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,150 construction years to accomplish.
• On hydropower, we’d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 938 construction years to accomplish.
• With nuclear power, we’d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 112 construction years to accomplish.
When Canadians assess the viability of the federal government’s emission-reduction timelines, they should understand the practical reality of electricity generation in Canada.
Check out this latest study https://fraserinstitute.cmail20.com/t/t-l-shutjkl-zdipiyii-d/
I did once calculate/estimate that to supply the energy needs of the US it would take a wind farm that covered an area of eight times that of Texas.
The problem with hydro projects is that you might need to build some suitable mountains to house the high level lakes required.
We used to have a coal-fired power station fairly close to me in the UK which would need, I estimate, a solar farm of around 200 square miles to replace it.
The problem is that the politicians pushing renewable energy never seem to stop and do the sums.
If they ever do quote any numbers they usually cheat. For instance, they usually quote rated maximum output as if it were average. The forget that if transport becomes electric then the amount of electricity required will nearly double. Then we have the cost issue. If there are no fossil fuels, will the government be happy to just forget all that tax revenue? I think not.
Then there is the maintenance aspect. Ivanpah in the Nevada desert covers about six square miles and produces less maximum power than just one typical coal-fired generating set. Imagine how many mirrors will need to be cleaned every day if everything was solar. Alternatively, imagine how many wind turbine blades would need to be replaced every day if we went down that route.
You see, I could be in government promoting all this!
I often wonder if these renewable solutions actually produce as much energy over their lifetime as it took to produce them.
I usually propose that we use California as a test case. They should have every external supply of electricity removed and they should rely 100% on renewables as a proof of concept.
At the moment, everyone seems to be pressing ahead before we know whether it is all going to work or not. Maybe it is being planned by the same people that planned the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out?
Yea, it's all stupid. We have one of the largest solar farms in the country in central Texas. There was a major hail storm last year and it was almost completely destroyed.
Cold not good for panels or windmills. Snow even worse. Distances not good for scale or transmission. Are they going back to Wood for all their energy?
Then no one should mind when the Canadian citizens protect their own.
Good luck up there our northern pedes
Cdn's are irate at what the globalist central bankers are planning for Canada... This unit isn't even in office, or elected, etc., etc!!!!
Good luck to those idiots 'taking on Americans' with windmills and solar panels icing up.
Praying for the ordinary folks.
Renewable energy may actually work in Canada. They have about 11 people per square mile. The UK has over 720 people per square mile so the total demand for energy is higher in the UK and the land is much more scarce.
For reference, the US is in between at around 91 people per square mile.
It's a hard NO
The federal government’s plan to eliminate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity generation by 2050 is impossible in practical terms. To meet existing and future electricity demand with low-emitting or zero-emitting sources within the government’s timeline, Canada would need to rapidly build infrastructure on a scale never before seen in the country’s history. For example: • To generate enough electricity solely with solar power, we’d need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,680 construction years to accomplish. • On wind power, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,150 construction years to accomplish. • On hydropower, we’d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 938 construction years to accomplish. • With nuclear power, we’d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 112 construction years to accomplish. When Canadians assess the viability of the federal government’s emission-reduction timelines, they should understand the practical reality of electricity generation in Canada. Check out this latest study https://fraserinstitute.cmail20.com/t/t-l-shutjkl-zdipiyii-d/
I did once calculate/estimate that to supply the energy needs of the US it would take a wind farm that covered an area of eight times that of Texas.
The problem with hydro projects is that you might need to build some suitable mountains to house the high level lakes required.
We used to have a coal-fired power station fairly close to me in the UK which would need, I estimate, a solar farm of around 200 square miles to replace it.
The problem is that the politicians pushing renewable energy never seem to stop and do the sums.
If they ever do quote any numbers they usually cheat. For instance, they usually quote rated maximum output as if it were average. The forget that if transport becomes electric then the amount of electricity required will nearly double. Then we have the cost issue. If there are no fossil fuels, will the government be happy to just forget all that tax revenue? I think not.
Then there is the maintenance aspect. Ivanpah in the Nevada desert covers about six square miles and produces less maximum power than just one typical coal-fired generating set. Imagine how many mirrors will need to be cleaned every day if everything was solar. Alternatively, imagine how many wind turbine blades would need to be replaced every day if we went down that route.
Those windmills will be frozen solid 8-9 months of the year. The relentless cold is what makes Canadians so tough. But it destroys everything else.
That's why you need heated wind turbines!
You see, I could be in government promoting all this!
I often wonder if these renewable solutions actually produce as much energy over their lifetime as it took to produce them.
I usually propose that we use California as a test case. They should have every external supply of electricity removed and they should rely 100% on renewables as a proof of concept.
At the moment, everyone seems to be pressing ahead before we know whether it is all going to work or not. Maybe it is being planned by the same people that planned the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out?
Yea, it's all stupid. We have one of the largest solar farms in the country in central Texas. There was a major hail storm last year and it was almost completely destroyed.
Cold not good for panels or windmills. Snow even worse. Distances not good for scale or transmission. Are they going back to Wood for all their energy?
Not even sure how to respond to this waste of human skin. A handful of zombies is all it could muster.