HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 8:09 PM
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
That is beyond ridiculous! As Eau Claire pointed out, ranchland is generally the least desirable land; if we want more housing, the smart thing to do is to densify our cities, not to sprawl grossly on what was previously open prairie/ranchland.
How would you combat astronomical condo fees?

Housing in cities (even ingenious sounding solutions like laneway housing) will always be more expensive because the value of the land is inflated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 8:25 PM
Jaws Jaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I mean, Jaws, you might as well post this, and conclude that Bavaria's solar potential is amazing! I mean, it's orange!
Well, it's not my map and it would stand to reason that more tropical locations would have greater solar potential. The map that I linked is a map of Canada and uses a different colour legend than the global maps. It is just meant to show a comparison between regions of Canada. What doesn't make sense?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 8:25 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaletown_fella View Post
How would you combat astronomical condo fees?

Housing in cities (even ingenious sounding solutions like laneway housing) will always be more expensive because the value of the land is inflated.
In theory you should pay less in transportation and servicing fees in a higher density city. In practise it never works out that way though as it always seems to be more expensive to live in the denser areas of large cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 9:22 PM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.
It is a major problem being far from the equator, because solar produces virtually nothing in the winter, when demand for electricity is highest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 9:35 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
It is a major problem being far from the equator, because solar produces virtually nothing in the winter, when demand for electricity is highest.
Same problem with wind - peak demand is in the evening whereas peak wind speeds are usually in the day. Wind does tend to blow stronger in the winter though. Alberta is especially unsuitable for solar as it has minimal air conditioning demand
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 9:54 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,611
Global warming will sort that problem out, we'll be running AC all summer long within time!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 10:22 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Global warming will sort that problem out, we'll be running AC all summer long within time!
You're correct that southern latitudes on our continent (above the tropics, i.e. still with seasons) are more optimized to be in sync with solar power.

My Quebec real estate has 75% of its yearly energy bill concentrated in the winter months. Peak energy consumption in FL is from May-September, the diametrical opposite. (Though I don't really see it, as everything over there is always rented with utilities excluded.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 10:26 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws View Post
It is just meant to show a comparison between regions of Canada. What doesn't make sense?
The fact that your map, just like the one of Germany I posted to highlight the problem, is labeling regions with poor solar potential with colors that tend to indicate non-poor solar potential, by having the full spectrum of colors apply to the map (a basic map design error).

A properly designed solar map of Germany would have the color legend go from blue to green, not blue to red. Bavaria should be green, not red. Reserve scarlet red for the Sahara.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 10:29 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaletown_fella View Post
How would you combat astronomical condo fees?

Housing in cities (even ingenious sounding solutions like laneway housing) will always be more expensive because the value of the land is inflated.
Land value is only a tiny part of the overall cost of living.

I've known people who've been in the Canadian Far North. Sure, land is free, but an apple will cost you $20.

It seems incredibly evident than sprawl (at the very least, in the long run) is more expensive on a per capita basis than dense urban living. Lots more infrastructure per resident to maintain, lots more spending on transportation by the residents, higher construction costs and higher energy costs, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 10:36 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
In theory you should pay less in transportation and servicing fees in a higher density city. In practise it never works out that way though as it always seems to be more expensive to live in the denser areas of large cities.
Depends how you do the math in practice. In sprawl, you are likely going to be forced to have a car; in the heart of a big city, you can be car-free. That's probably several grand a year right there for most people. In sprawl, you have a big back yard with trees (that you have to mow/maintain), in the city, you don't but instead you can enjoy the closest public parks, which are likely nicer than anything you'd have in your sprawly neighborhood; etc.

Sure, if you want equal material luxury on all counts, and don't factor in the intangibles (commuting time saved, access to nice restaurants, etc.) then yeah, living in sprawl is cheaper. But that's not an apples to apples comparison at all - a given house with a pool and large private backyard in the middle of nowhere and that exact same house in the heart of Toronto, that's not comparable; the latter has lots of extra advantages and basically no drawbacks, it's normal that you'd have to pay a lot more.

At the end of the year, you can live for $x a year in sprawl or for the same $x a year in the heart of downtown of a big city, and it should be comparable in pros and cons. Sure, you'll have less square feet of living space in the latter case, but you'll have other things to make up for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 4:31 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Bumped to thispage....Sorry, i was hoping for a response.
Wrong thread? Is that the response you were looking for?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 4:35 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Here’s another HUGE one. The one qualifier I’ll put on this is that this is the only place I’ve heard this number. I’ve seen them say they expected to be able to get down to this number, but not that they’re there now. Start at the 3:00 mark to get right to it, but the whole clip is very informative, with the exception of the last bit where he speculates on the future of hydrogen, which is a prognostication I don’t share.
https://vimeo.com/305779686

What this guy is saying is that his company can remove CO2 from industrial exhaust streams for $30/tonne, and it can be transported and sequestered for $10-$20/tonne, and add in a profit margin of $10/tonne and there is a basis for an industry that can CCS very large amounts of CO2 for $60 tonne. So worst case scenario, if we can’t find enough commercial uses for the CO2, a $60/tonne carbon tax is all we’d need to capture huge amounts of it and stick in it in the ground. As of today that is, and we’re still only 4 years into our 85 year project, so lots of future improvements and developments are possible and probable.

Edit: btw, Inventys is a Canadian company, from Burnaby BC.

Last edited by Eau Claire; May 30, 2019 at 4:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 5:00 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,611
I treat the claims of cheap carbon capture with skepticism, but if it actually is true, then solving climate change is remarkably easy. Just implement a carbon tax and credit system with the price higher than the cost of capturing it, and then we can carry on almost as normal.

Of course, we'll need renewable sources of energy to fuel the CC plants, but that problem will sort itself out as the carbon input into the plants energy will be built into the price. As long as the price is right, then it will be cheaper to take CO2 out of the air than put it back in.

So, either we implement carbon pricing or we can fight each other over worthless Green New Deal ideas that will never happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 5:07 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Global warming will sort that problem out, we'll be running AC all summer long within time!
Doubtful unless climate change can lower elevations. The hottest and one of the lowest locales, Medicine Hat only gets ~15 hot days per year and still cools off at night. Two extra degrees or even 4 extra degrees will not materially increase AC demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 5:13 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I treat the claims of cheap carbon capture with skepticism, but if it actually is true, then solving climate change is remarkably easy. Just implement a carbon tax and credit system with the price higher than the cost of capturing it, and then we can carry on almost as normal.

Of course, we'll need renewable sources of energy to fuel the CC plants, but that problem will sort itself out as the carbon input into the plants energy will be built into the price. As long as the price is right, then it will be cheaper to take CO2 out of the air than put it back in.

So, either we implement carbon pricing or we can fight each other over worthless Green New Deal ideas that will never happen.
Until they've done it I don't think there's anything wrong with reasonable amount of caution, but increasingly they're doing it, which is encouraging. Contrary to what Leturneau says at the end of that bit, I think new nuclear is going to be major source of electricity in the medium to long term, and it is essentially zero carbon, but even if they had to use CO2 emitting sources you're still coming out waaaay on the plus side when you sequester. I've got another video to post also from Inventys that talks about developing a carbon market for captured carbon, and that is a preferred way to go, because it would mean a reduced or perhaps no carbon tax. There's so much going on right now that it's hard to see how it will all shake out, but lots of very good developments means lots of positive possible paths forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 5:17 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Claire View Post
Wrong thread? Is that the response you were looking for?
He had his response from me already, despite his question being only indirectly on topic for the thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 5:51 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Claire View Post
Wrong thread? Is that the response you were looking for?

Um, how is it the wrong thread? Please explain? It has everything to do with climate change.


Lake Ontario reaches highest level in recorded history, leaving Toronto Islands bracing for more flooding

High winds on Thursday afternoon could lead to waves and water breaches, officials warn
CBC News · Posted: May 30, 2019 1:43 PM ET


Water levels on Lake Ontario have reached the highest point in recorded history, putting the Toronto Islands at risk of significant flooding.

Current levels have reached 76.03 metres above sea level, topping the previous record of 75.93 metres which was set in 2017 when the islands were inundated with water.

Toronto Islands face 'distressing time' as lake levels on rise, high winds in store
Ferry service to Hanlan's Point has been suspended and the area around Gibraltar Point has been closed off as a result. Worse, strong winds are expected on Thursday afternoon, something that could lead to "significant wave action," local Coun. Joe Cressy warned.

"This is a difficult time for local residents, who are also working tirelessly to protect the Islands. We are all grateful for volunteer assistance from visitors and the public," Cressy said in a tweet.


full article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...vels-1.5155962
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:01 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Um, how is it the wrong thread? Please explain? It has everything to do with climate change.


Lake Ontario reaches highest level in recorded history, leaving Toronto Islands bracing for more flooding

High winds on Thursday afternoon could lead to waves and water breaches, officials warn
CBC News · Posted: May 30, 2019 1:43 PM ET


Water levels on Lake Ontario have reached the highest point in recorded history, putting the Toronto Islands at risk of significant flooding.

Current levels have reached 76.03 metres above sea level, topping the previous record of 75.93 metres which was set in 2017 when the islands were inundated with water.

Toronto Islands face 'distressing time' as lake levels on rise, high winds in store
Ferry service to Hanlan's Point has been suspended and the area around Gibraltar Point has been closed off as a result. Worse, strong winds are expected on Thursday afternoon, something that could lead to "significant wave action," local Coun. Joe Cressy warned.

"This is a difficult time for local residents, who are also working tirelessly to protect the Islands. We are all grateful for volunteer assistance from visitors and the public," Cressy said in a tweet.


full article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...vels-1.5155962
Maybe you should explain. What do you think this has to do with climate change?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:16 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Claire View Post
Maybe you should explain. What do you think this has to do with climate change?
Apparently all bad weather is because of climate change now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:50 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,611
On the other hand, it's perfectly plausible that Ontario would get wetter in the winter (I believe that's what all (or at least most) models are forecasting) due to climate change.

Climate change, implies change.

Wetter, implies higher lake levels.

We just had two "you'll see that maybe once in a century at most" years out of three consecutive years. How likely is that, statistically? It's much more likely that the old normals have slightly changed now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.