Moving to greener sources of energy

I find the ‘green’ energy motivation and politics are just a method for the government to increase taxes. I work in the oilfield and the amount of oil is increasing and demand is going higher.

Green energy requires more oil. Oil is needed to make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. The only thing that seems to have changed is taxes.

In my +30 years in the oilfield, energy waste has accelerated due to the green movement.

There is increased demand for coal, oil, nuclear, and other forms of energy because of solar and wind generators.

I thought the green movement was supposed to be good?


As far as I understand whats going on in Alberta the more green energy you have the more policy says you have to have sufficient traditional sources to cover them IF they are unavailable.

Since there are/were incentives for installing green energy projects but NOT requiring storage or any other means to turn intermittent sources into more stable supplies you end up with an increase in traditional power sources to back those green sources JUST IN CASE

Stable supply from green sources that can cover base loads would alleviate and reduce this but there are no incentives for creating such power projects
So they dont happen
And we build more gas fired plants

Nuclear, however, wouldn’t require such a set up since it is more like traditional supplies that can cover base loads

I agree with your theory about more sufficient traditional sources and the story that the media is attempting to portray. However, the opposite is what has occurred. This is just my experience (Not expert) over the last 8-years or so.

Global, federal, provincial, and local demand have all increased. Even more coal, oil, and nuclear is requested due to the sporadic supply of electricity due to green sources. Rolling blackouts are being drafted by politicians as mandatory because of poor green energy policies.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see more responsible energy use, more responsible green energy use. However, federal policies have made this impossible, and my wild guess is due to naïve politics.

I agree that more green sources to provide stable electrical supply is one of the key aspects. However, this has been the complete opposite by misguided politicians. Wind isn’t constant, solar isn’t constant. Larger coal, oil, and nuclear power generation facilities are needed because of wide-demand to power from poor energy political decisions.

Unfortunately, the demand for energy has increased, green sources of energy have made the electrical grid less stable, and more infrastructure (which requires more oil, coal, and nuclear) has further increased.

Again, the theory is nice, but in practice the politicians have taken a good idea and completely messed it up.

Edit: spelling

Its not really my theory
I’m just relaying what I learned from someone who worked for the regulatory body & for various generation companies

Exactly - but many power projects are incentivized to install generation WITHOUT storage etc so these sources can provide reliable power much like traditional sources
Because of this they dont install storage etc and have wildly fluctuating output - which has to be levelled out buy other traditional sources

No question
And at present our main means of meeting this demand is traditional coal, oil or gas fired plants as they are well known, reliable, and “quick” to build (compared to a nuclear plant for instance)
However, they are “dirty”
Yeah I know thats a hard thing to say given where I live
But when you look at Canadas main contributors to CO2 emissions Alberta & Fort Mc rank VERY high on Canada’s list of top contributors to CO2 emissions

in the meantime, “burning man” is now “drawning man”

I agree that raw coal is ‘dirty’ because of the sulphur, and there has been so many changes to regulations, that coal is much cleaner in Canada than almost any other country. Oil and natural gas are definitely not ‘dirty’.

Carbon Dioxide is at about 400 parts per million (0.04%). Plant growth stagnates at 200 parts per million (0.02%). Since the Carbon Dioxide emissions are becoming too low in some areas, companies are purchasing raw Carbon Dioxide to supplement available uptake since greenhouses are having a reduced rate of photosynthesis.

The level of CO2 has been decreasing for many years. This sure seems to be a government tax grab, not an environmental issue.

They produce tons of CO2 - making them dirty for the environment
Even with sequestration there’s little prospect of them being net zero for CO2 emissions
And they do tend to have other issues like ash etc that still needs to be dealt with

Dont get me wrong
I’m not an ANTI coal/oil/gas
We’re not going to get off those in 5 - 10 years as the infrastructure for anything else just doesnt exist (JOBS !)
But I would advocate for a much more rapid transition to greener sources WITH suitable storage etc so that the net effect as far as consumers see it that nothing has changed
And we’d end up emitting less CO2 - which wouldn’t be a bad thing
And where this HAS been done its actually created jobs
Alberta could in fact be a leader in this areas given our sunny climate & available space

I’ll ask my cousin who works at Pew
Pretty sure that the IPCC and others might find that CO2 has, at best, flatlined - which is a good thing
But its still a greenhouse accelerant and is above most historical measures

I think this is possibly where we may disagree (respectfully of course :slight_smile: ) . I do not consider CO2 as dirty, rather essence for life. If CO2 levels get too low, life stops - thats really the fundamental rule. No plants, no photosynthesis, no oxygen, no life.

I completely agree with you. I wish there were other ways to make energy that we can sustain life on this planet. Maybe fusion/fission is the future?? Not sure. I see emitting CO2 as a good thing. Emitting CO2 is a bad thing - yes I agree. I consider the job thing as secondary. We need CO2 to live - its essential.

Please do. I have went down this road way too many times. CO2 levels are decreasing over the history of Earth. Its actually a problem. If we get down to about 200 ppm (?) then it becomes a problem, and life will have problems existing - termination of life is something I am not fond of :slight_smile:

Be careful with news propaganda. Human emissions are different that total global CO2.

if CO2 gets too high you get Venus where everything is baked to death
Runaway green house isnt an option humans can survive either

Sad as it is right now nuclear fission (which already exists) is probably the MOST viable “clean” option for the next bunch of years
Fusion power is always 30 years away and has been for the last 30 years and probably will be for the next 30 years :slight_smile:

over billions of years sure CO2 has fluctuated
just look at since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to now
something that can actually be measured from sediments in various lakes etc around the world
those levels are quite a bit higher now then they were
we’ve released a LOT of CO2 from the fossil fuels we burn - no one can seriously claim that hasn’t happened

and that IS a problem
its no coincidence that the hottest average years on record have been in the last decade

dont be fooled by the denialism either
gas, while cleaner than oil or coal, isnt “green” in the same way solar or wind is

Not sure I want to try & live on Venus either :slight_smile:

EDIT : Sent my cousin an email and I’ll see what he says

Right? Who knows what complete history has went through. Maybe we messed up the planet Mars so bad that we had to move to Earth. :wink:

What I sort-of take out of the CO2 thing is that humans will not be able to change everything/everyone. If you are concerned about CO2, feel free to do your part. Trying to change other countries doesn’t seem to work. If someone is worried about a flood, let them build an Arc. If another person is worried about global warming, move to a cold place. Its almost like a religion. Each religion believes theirs’s is the best. Then great!

Don’t worry, be happy. :slight_smile:

OK I got a reply
I’ve cut out “personal chit chat”

re : cleaner in canada than elsewhere

re: > The level of CO2 has been decreasing for many years. This sure seems to be a government tax grab, not an environmental issue.
I probably worded this badly and his reply

re : > Carbon Dioxide is at about 400 parts per million (0.04%). Plant growth stagnates at 200 parts per million (0.02%). Since the Carbon Dioxide emissions are becoming too low in some areas, companies are purchasing raw Carbon Dioxide to supplement available uptake since greenhouses are having a reduced rate of photosynthesis.

Hi Norman,

Thanks for the information. Here is some of what I read in the report and comments. (It seems like a fairly good response).

Comparing Canadian Oil to UAE oil is not a fair comparison. UAE literally drills a well and much of the oil pumps itself out of the ground - most is primary oil production. Of course less energy is used, since it naturally comes out of the ground. In Canada frozen north, we need heat to survive (-50 C is pretty cool), and heat to process the oil. Having said that, more efficiency is taking place (From the article your friend quoted). If there was alternate energy sources, such as fusion, fission, solar, wind, then this could lower the CO2 emissions intensity.


I would maybe change the wording to more energy carbon intensive to produce. Again, -50 C is cold, and people in Canada tend to like not freezing to death.

I did quite a bit of subsurface work for Hibernia, and again, the comparison is not the same. Hibernia oil is similar to UAE since much less work is needed to get it out of the ground. There is much more natural gas to help propel the crude from the formation. Sorry, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I don’t quite agree with this, although some is true. Every month, all producers are required to report how much oil, gas, and other materials produced. Emissions during drilling are all captured - usually through a company called PASON, which is used on most of the wells that I have drilled. Having worked around the world, Canada ranks with the highest producers having the most stringent and the toughest legislation in the world. One area which might have slightly more stringent legislation is the North Sea.

I have been involved with producing natural gas from coal, which is an attempt to get the last remaining energy from a formation that is near the end of its life. Trying to get the last few drop and gas from a well that is almost finished is usually quite difficult, and this comes down to an economic decision.

In fact, average upstream oil
and gas emissions intensity rose by just 3% over the past
decade, a much better performance than a number of
other peer countries. At the same time, Canadian upstream
oil and gas production increased by 41 per cent, according
to Rystad Energy data. 

A quote from the last page of the article. If the federal government would be able to work with the oil industry instead of against it, the oil companies would take some of the profits and perform more work on alternate energy that works. Sorry, solar is not reliable enough. Here is a picture of panels which were destroyed during hail storms - which are frequent in our area.

A company who is attempting to have a 15 year return-on-investment would hesitate supporting the solar power industry with images and stories like this. 5.2 megawatts are now permanently off the power grid - 27 June 2023.

Here are the total global CO2 emissions: (CO2 Emissions in 2022 – Analysis - IEA)

Canada is 1.5% of global emssions (, which means, that Canada is responsible for ~0.67 Gigatons of CO2 ( , which means that we are a rounding error for the world with about 38 Gigatons of emissions. Emissions from China grew 0.2 Gigatons just in 2022.

Since we live in a Cold Climate, 17% of Greenhouse Gas is from residential, commercial, and institutional buildings. If we lived in the southern United States, then energy would be used for cooling not heating.
``Today, residential, commercial, and institutional buildings contribute 17% of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Considering building materials and construction brings that number is closer to 30%, making the building sector Canada’s third-highest carbon emitter.``` (Building climate solutions - Canada Green Building Council (CAGBC)).

I strongly disagree with the term ‘dirty’ oil production, as this is not an even comparison. I am proud of the advances and ethical work performed in Canada. Ethics, health, and life in oil production in other areas of the world are denied by many. Human life is not worth much in some other countries.

Just from that graph OIL & Gas is the #! producer of green house gases in Canada

That, along with all other sources, are what many, not all, governments are trying to target & reduce since it poses an existential crisis

As humans we’re unlikely to get off oil & gas in the very near future (5-10 years)
Increasing our efforts to make that shift and turn intermittent sources like solar and wind into more reliable steady producers through the use of storage of all kinds would aid in those efforts to reduce out fossil fuel usage

Thats all I’m advocating

Yes, agreed. This is what happens when you produce your own oil.

I relate this to programming:
Programmer - shipping - users use programs
Oil producers - shipping -users use oil

If you program in your own country, you will use more energy, since you will create the program, ship the program, and users will use your program.

If you produce oil in your country, you will use more energy, since you produce the oil, ship the oil, and users will use the oil.

In this same vein, Canada should not have programmers, since we can get a 3rd world country to make our programs for us, which will lower our energy use.

Yes, it take more energy, food, people to make programs in Canada, ship it in Canada, and use it in Canada. The same with oil. If we only import oil or programs that were created in another country, then the total amount of energy is the same - the energy just LOOKS better since nothing is produced in Canada.

I largely disagree with this comment. Its about corrupt governments and making money. Governments typically only care enough about people to get votes. The existential crisis is corrupt politicians.

My wild guess would be when fission and fusion become normal - maybe 50 years at the earliest? Solar and wind are incredibly inefficient, expensive, and require more coal, oil, and uranium energy to keep people alive during low solar and wind electrical generation times. Storage of energy requires…more energy. Are Canadians going to a third world nation to make batteries for us, and it would make our ‘green’ energy use look nicer - even though the total amount of energy used is the same? I seems like crooked accounting - make our Canadian books look better by having the messy stuff completed by third world nations.

Each nation should be responsible for their own energy, manufacturing, population, heating, cooling, shipping - the entire life-cycle of all goods and services.

This is all I am advocating :slight_smile:

I’m advocating producing LESS oil since it produces CO2 in much larger amounts than solar and/or wind

The govt of Alberta isnt exactly a “green energy advocate” so I’m a bit perplexed by this comment ?
The Canadian Energy Center is funded by the Alberta govt and it isnt exactly a “glowing report” on the efficiency and how well the O & G industry is doing in reducing Co2 emissions
It states that During the period between 2010 and 2020, Canadian upstream oil and gas (including oil sands) kg CO2 emissions per boe produced increased by just 3 per cent
So CO2 per barrel went UP
AND production went up
So we produced much MORE CO2 than before
Would have been nicer to see CO2 per BOE went down and production went up

100% disagree here
Just look at the # of extreme weather events now vs 20 years ago vs 50 years ago
Billion $ extreme weather events happen far more frequently than ever before
The hottest average days on record have happened almost exclusively in the last decade
The IPCC forecast about 10 years ago that given whats occurring in CO2 levels that we’d see the souther west USA get drier, and the easter get much wetter
Thats been very true - the south west has undergone a persistent drought over the last decade and the east has been repeatedly hammered by flooding & much wetter weather. The trends hold true to predictions despite the occasional heavy down pour etc in the southwest or heat wave in the east. Overall the trends exist - with or without politicians
Facts dont care if you believe in them or not - they just are

Coral bleaching is well known
My cousin, whom I asked, studied them years ago trying to understand what was causing it as part of his PhD
Now we know - CO2 levels in the oceans + the higher water temperatures cause this
The microbes that live on the corals giving it the color die off / leave and the remains are the bleached corals

Fission exists - every nuclear reactor in the world is a fission reactor
They’ve existed for many years

Fusion doesnt and has been “close” for so long I do not expect it to be widespread in my life time
Nor in my kids lifetimes

Efficiency is a specious thing to toss in - when the sun dumps more energy on the planet in one day than we could use in an entire year who cares how efficient it is ?
If every day we could capture 1% of all the solar energy and convert it to electricity we’d have more power than we could imagine
We can generate the energy to store that energy in the same way
This tech exists in several places around the world already using pumped storage, molten salt, and other means
Vanadium redox batteries for storage exist and they have the unique capability of being able to be discharged & charged at the same time
Some, are quite large (many 10’s of megawatt & larger)

The “batteries” do not have to be lithium ion, etc
In the case of mass storage there are lots of options that do not involve making “batteries”
A pumped storage system is a battery in that it store potential energy in the form of mass
And that water can be released later to power hydro generators

These are “batteries” in any sense that matters - it stores energy

And we have a responsibility for our own health, and that of our offspring and neighbours, to do so in a responsible way
I’m sure if your next door neighbour burned his garbage right next to your house you’d be upset with the odour and possibly the chemicals released
Air and water dont respect our human borders
Our pollution affects us and everyone else just as theirs affects us
Thats why governments around the world have committed to doing what they can to combat the increase of gases that affect all of us regardless of national borders
Albertas emissions affect not only Alberta but all of Canada and the world

Advocating for producing what we produce in the cleanest way possible is what I’d like to see pursued more vigorously

I dont happen to believe that Canada can be self sufficient in terms of manufacturing
Economies of scale simply dont exist here
We’ll likely never have a TSMC producing microprocessors in Canada
Thats but one example but I’m certain there are many industries in which the economies of scale to make a business viable simply do not exist in Canada, or Alberta
So we rely on imports for some products, and export others.

Agreed, in a perfect world I would like less oil produced. We are on the same page here, and looking from opposite sides of the same coin. Since we need more energy to keep people alive, work, create stuff (programs), grow food, etc., this comes in the form of energy. Using poor book-keeping to make it appear like we are doing better is a poor choice. Like I mentioned, once fusion and fission are commonplace, then the total amount of carbon will decrease. However, we may all glow from nuclear accidents. I guess it is one of those sayings to ‘pick your poison’. Either use energy that creates CO2 that has a natural cycle by being used by plants, or use Uranium which causes rewriting of DNA and killing people. Which poison is best? Who knows?

Yes, I believe that the Alberta government is definitely green. The difference is that the current government looks at the whole energy-life-cycle, while other parties like to pick-and-choose what they like, like a corrupt accountant. I am not saying that all government parties are good - far from it.

I think that the economics look much better with only an increase in 3% energy to create a gain of 41%. That seems quite efficient to me. If you could create 41% more quality code and only used 3% energy to do it, it seems like good economics from my perspective.

Again, I go to our wonderful corrupt politicians.

If these extreme weather events are meaningful, then why delete 100 years of data on climate change? Sure, the data may not be perfect, but deleting data? What else is being hidden. Again, politicians picking-and-choosing their data.

Of course! This is very old information (no disrespect meant for your cousin - of course). There is a geological lexicon of formations for Western Canada that shows sedimentation of CO2 levels (commonly called carbonate, dolomite, limestone, etc) that occurred many years ago. This is well-known and documented. From my previous graph which shows the lowering of CO2 over geological time, will require a CO2 sink, which often occurs by coral reefs and other organisms to deposit CO2 based rock. Which is also where oil comes from, with decomposed organisms, trees, etc.

Yes, agreed. Its been a nice dream for many years. I am not sure if I will see it in my lifetime either.

I completely agree. Capturing the suns energy is one way of coming to a solution. The part that can easily be missed is that capturing of this energy requires: programmers, energy, melting iron, creating solar panels (just an example). This sun-converting-mechanism requires energy to start. This vast amount of energy, cost, and development time must come out of someones pocket. Just need to have a timeline and create good schools to develop students that eventually lead this development. Turning the oil taps off and having no energy without a substitution seems to be a wrong path - in my opinion. I would rather use the energy we have to create something beneficial, like what the Alberta government is doing. Gradually transition, rather than have rolling blackouts - keep people alive during cold winter months.

I agree. Why would the federal government remove money from Alberta who is trying to develop new technologies? The federal government seems severely misguided - beatings will continue until morale improves. :slight_smile:

Absolutely. Our next-door-neighbors British Columbia and their poor tree harvesting programs are a direct result of poor forestry policies, where the mountain pine beetle has been allowed to prosper - due to extremely poor BC government policies:

Agreed. Which is why I advocate that Canada should produce our own oil and not rely on other third-world-nations. We are saying the same thing from opposite sides of the coin :slight_smile:

What I would like, and what are actually achievable are two different things. Heading towards fission and fusion might be the way to go. Will it happen tomorrow? Likely not.

Yes, agreed. The world is a big place and we likely can’t do everything. Can we try? You bet we can. I would like to see Canada more-vigorously work on being accountable for our own total-lifecycle of energy, people, nature, technology, and more. Our federal overlords seem like they only want to skew the accounting-books to make it look nice without looking at the whole picture.

@npalardy, it seems like we agree on many of the topics and have the same goals. Where we differ appears in the way in which we view the path to the final solution.

As always, this is a good discussion and I enjoy our exchange of words, as this is enlightening to see someone elses perspective. Thank you

Neither - esp when there are alternatives that, with the right infrastructure like storage, dont require us to make this choice that poisons us one way or the other

The UPC isnt what I’d call “green”

I have a friend that works at the AER and what he relates to me convinces me of that more & more
And its definitely not a “whole life cycle approach” from what he relates to me

Code isnt a proper comparison though

Lets try this
Sit in a sealed room filled with some product
Now figure out how to only increase CO2 production by 3% and increase production by 41%
Do that year after year after year
The volume of CO2 you produce with that, while efficient, WILL kill you sooner or later
That doesnt seem a good trade off regardless of economics
Carbon update by all forms of sequestration in the oceans, plants, etc isnt increasing by the same amount we dump into the atmosphere

Because it wasnt data that was reliable due to limited # of observations, lack of varied locations, etc ?
Even without that 100 years of suspect data its possible to see changes in the last 70 years
They could include it, and then have to put a disclaimer about it, or not
They chose to omit it
And we dont have to rely solely on what Env Canada does / says

There are many years of reports there
And many other research groups; some NOT government funded like Pew, which is, afaik, privately funded

I tend to NOT rely on research funded by the energy industry because its has a clear vested interest.
Even then Exxon and other energy companies have written reports about climate change as far back as the 1970’s

Its quite well documented now that Exxon researcher warned of climate change, but Exxon funded climate change denialism

The bleaching isnt carbon being accumulated IN the coral
Its accumulating in the water making it acidic, and very warm, and that kills the corals
Whats left is just the carbonate deposits which given millions and millions of years can turn into rock formations as you note
Plant deposition is a different process though
It has the net effect of sequestering carbon and removing carbon dioxide - but thats not keeping pace with the increased CO2 levels by any stretch

Sure - solar powered smelters :slight_smile: they exist
Not on the same scale as exist from fossil fuelled ones but then when fossil fuels first started being used THEY didnt exist on the same scale as what preceded them

You have to start somewhere

It already does
Its not like we have to spend the exact same on what we have now + new
Instead of investing in new oil/coal/gas why not invest in building green energy production + storage ?
Replace it with some thing new
Will that be incrementally more expensive ?
Solar was when it first came out
Now ? it is THE cheapest way to produce electricity there is - even cheaper than coal
What we dont have is the infrastructure to deal with it effectively like we do coal/oil/gas
But none of those had any infrastructure when the Industrial Revolution got started
And, here in Alberta, we subsidized the crap out of building that infrastructure & still do (we just dont call it a subsidy)
Ft Mc has had royalty holidays in their production for ages
Many parts of the O & G industry have various write offs & holidays

We should do the same for the solar & wind businesses

I dont think anyone with any sense has said “we have to turn them off NOW!” and have no alternative
That would be truly crazy
However many do suggest VERY rapid adoption of green energy alternatives
I’m not sure thats possible OR practical until / unless the infrastructure to support such a move is at least beginning to be in place
Storage for solar & wind, to flatten out their production curves, is ONE aspect of that infrastructure
Without it the claims of “the grid cant handle that intermittent supply” is 100% true
Get rid of that intermittency and the grid maybe doesnt need much significant investment
BUT, this is where I fault government.
They HAVE provided incentives to solar & wind projects - much as they did O & G way back when
But, what they didnt do was incentivize production that was regular & consistent
So many green projects are not and they really screw with the grid
Had the govt policy been to add consistent regular production then we’d have a different situation than we do

Alberta approach, while gradual, is SO gradual that it probably wont yield any serious changes in my lifetime
THAT I consider a problem
Its a “stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away” approach IMHO

Not sure what ou are referring to here ?
The fed govt has put in billions to cap abandoned wells
Significant amounts of $ for green energy projects in alberta
And now transfers more money TO Alberta than it gets in taxes (this happened in about 2021 or so and has continued to be that way
Or maybe because the Federal govt want to fund green projects - which Albertas new technologies arent ?
Natural gas might be cleaner than coal but its not “green” by any measure

The prosper because we dont get the same harsh cold winters we used to that would kill them
Thats but one aspect of climate change bring ing new threats & pests to where they didnt exist before
And poor policies exacerbated the issue

Not quite
I’m literally saying “Lets STOP producing oil as quickly as we can”
I know people will freak out with that

but where green projects HAVE been undertaken they are producers of a vast number of jobs - different types of jobs sure. But they are jobs & they are sustainable jobs
O & G IS a finite resource
One day those jobs ARE going to NOT exist

Fission power exists and we could start building a plant tomorrow - IF the will existed
There have been discussions ion building such a plant at Ft Mc

I find it funny they’d use a “relatively clean” source like that to produce some of the least clean oil on the planet
They’d emit next to zero CO2 to produce a fuel that emits XO2 literally by the ton

Strange choices - but then we’re back to infrastructure
We have to little vehicles that are electric, or even hybrid
So there’s no demand
And so there’s no incentive to do anything

This is where public policy CAN drive change - and for the better
Smoking is a great example
There are fewer smokers today than there were when I grew up
Why ? Public policy said that smokers were harming not only themselves, but also others & costing millions in the health care system because of their habit
And so policies were enacted to discourage it - note I didnt say BAN it
They could have tried that but I know it would have been ineffective

Seat belts was another where public policy shaped the behaviour
IMHO For the better
Fewer people die in car accidents now
Fewer people live with injury for the rest of their lives because of it
But in this case they DID try to BAN not wearing seatbelts & its a very expensive fine
But I can tell you for a fact there are the who will never wear one and avoid them all the time
At their cost if they get caught & fined

I do think public policy CAN make the right things happen
But some governments are not incentivized to set the policies in place
I do not consider our UPC government to be one of those that is incentivized
Which is why they have halted green energy project approvals :man_facepalming:

They’re far from alone in this
The AB govt is also in the mix

I enjoy talking to someone who isnt just screaming in my face that I’m some kind of radical green freak
I’m really not
I just dont think we are moving fast enough to avoid some very bad consequences

Almost all 3 of next years presidential candidates here in Taiwan has suggested that they’ll re-open some of the nuclear plants here in Taiwan.

The current administration wanted to phase them out and replace them with “Green” energy, which meant “Clean” coal, LPG, solar and wind.

Of course the grid took a hit and we get blackouts on occasion, there is next to no reserve in the grid and when something goes wrong… It is of course the power companies fault and they get fined by the same government that made them shut down the nuclear power stations…

The short-sighted execution of going green is appalling . Great swathes of woodland in our area is now solar farms. When the government was called out about it, the president went on TV and said it wasn’t true, but we live here (in the sunny part) and we know she wasn’t telling the truth.

Most buildings here have flat roofs (in a country that is frequented by Typhoons), so why not make the panels so they can be installed on houses or government buildings? When we tried to get some for our own house, we were told we can’t (I forget the exact excuse).

They could even use the panels to create shaded cycle paths, or to shade sections of highway, which would keep the air on the road cooler and thus reduce the workload for vehicle AC.

clean coal is a marketing term more than anything
lpg is cleaner but still not “green”
nuclear, while not perfectly clean because of waste products, is among the “cleanest” of those options and darned reliable

This is exactly what they should be doing & encouraging
Odd they dont
Solar panels are quite flexible in where you can install them
Even on roadways and sidewalks

There are already lots of surfaces that could be covered in panels
Like the sides of buildings

1 Like

I have a pretty decent record on long-term predictions so let me put in my 2c:

Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

But anyone arguing like that is missing a few important points:

(1) Oxygen levels used to be close to ZERO - so should we argue that we can safely reduce the levels?

(2) The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the highest for 14 million years . You REALLY do not want to live in a World with a climate like 50 or 100 million years ago.

(3) But more importantly: the real problem is the SPEED OF CHANGE. Most of the change from 280 ppm to nearly 400 now happened in less than 200 years. Many plants and animals are unable to cope with the rapid change - we are already knee deep in a mass extinction that rivals the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Many reptiles and insects determine sex or the sex ratio by heat - if only males or only females are born they go instinct.

Insect numbers have plummeted by up to 96% in places - not only in industrialised nations but even in “untouched” areas like the Costa Rican rain forest. The importance and effect of pollinators disappearing should not be under-estimated.

The take up of CO2 into the oceans leads to acidification that makes building skeletons from dissolved Calcium carbonate near impossible.

The biggest effects of global heating are currently felt at the BOTTOM of the food pyramid, and the effects will not propagate gradually and slowly up the chain but suddenly and catastrophically.

The ability of the ecosystems to compensate is being steadily eroded (from multiple sides, eg pollution, exploitation, etc), and while it takes a few hundred years for the changes to reach a tipping point, when it tips EVERYTHING depending on it tips too.

Most plants and animals will come up with new varieties that might be able to cope better - but that doesn’t prevent a population collapse, it just means the species might still be around in a few thousand years.

But for many species this will not be enough - because as a population they depend on a plentiful supply of other species for food.

The food we eat is produced in dirt that developed into fertile soil over sometimes tens of thousands of years. Alluvial plains for example. The most productive areas are coastal areas. Which is a small percentage of land area. Where do you get your food when these areas become too dry / wet / hot / cold / unstable / submerged for agriculture?

Will Humans survive?

Humans - yes.

Humanity - doubtful.

Because it is just a question of WHEN, not IF, the human population will collapse like the environment they depend on around them.