HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 4:08 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 20,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
We're just too far north for large scale solar power plants. Wind is much more effective--Ontario makes good use of wind backed up by hydroelectric and gas.
All of Alberta is significantly north of Southern Ontario and even the NCR, and yet Solar is our fastest growing energy market. The Calgary metropolitan area alone is set to add another 175 megawatts of solar over the next year or two. I believe the province itself is to add around a gigawatt of solar by 2022. All while being colder on average than most of Southern Ontario, a bit warmer than the NCR, and Calgary (in the relatively far south) being over 750 km further north than Ottawa. So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 4:20 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
All of Alberta is significantly north of Southern Ontario and even the NCR, and yet Solar is our fastest growing energy market. The Calgary metropolitan area alone is set to add another 175 megawatts of solar over the next year or two. I believe the province itself is to add around a gigawatt of solar by 2022. All while being colder on average than most of Southern Ontario, a bit warmer than the NCR, and Calgary (in the relatively far south) being over 750 km further north than Ottawa. So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.
How is that working out?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 4:21 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 20,431
It's working out really well, hence the entirety of my post. Also, it would of course be helpful if your graphic pointed at all to which year/decade it's citing, as obviously energy production is not static. The NDP government shut down several coal fired power plants during their mandate and began the process of phasing it out entirely (which even your source says), and oversaw the largest 4-year expansion of solar ever in Canada.

Edit: Ah I found your source, two years old. Not too out of date, but still out of date.
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:04 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
It must be trolling as your opposition to a carbon tax is completely illogical. You correctly point out that the way to reduce emissions is to reduce personal consumption,
There's a massive difference between choosing to do something out of free will and being forced to do so because of cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
but are then opposed to the one best tool the government has to effect that.
Because it's not the role of government to address the issue. It's the job of the individuals that care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
And you claim to support a 'cow tax', but again oppose a tool that effectively does that (in a much more elegant way).
And by elegant you mean needlessly complicated and entirely likely to hurt people with less money than more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I'm very confused by people who are already using little carbon being so opposed to carbon pricing. What is your goal here?
Personal freedom, I don't live 100 kilometers way from the nearest employer, I don't own a factory, I'm not a small sized contractor, a farm owner etc.

I don't believe attacking people who work outside of the service economy is fair.

I don't believe in authoritarian government laws that take from the average person blindly without having any understanding of their life circumstances.

Especially when we know dam well that money is going to green start ups subsidies in wealthy places like Waterloo and Silicon valley.

You also make the outlandish assumption that because I consume little that I am not concerned by how carbon taxes might effect my employer or the community around me.

The fact that you expect my own selfishness to surpass my concern for others is revealing.

A whole lot of this green thinking is directed at people who are looking out for themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
If it's easy to reduce one's carbon footprint, why do you not agree that manipulating the pricing will change people's behaviour?
Because manipulating pricing is manipulating people.

If you believe that its a problem take care of your own dam house.

If you don't consume much already attack people on your side before you attack people who aren't so concerned.

Last edited by LakeLocker; May 29, 2019 at 5:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:09 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eau Claire View Post
Cows are a strange issue. I understand the burping thing, but they are often talked about as using a lot of water and land, and that I don't understand, at least in the Canadian context. Cows may use, but they don't use up, water. What goes in one end comes out the other. They also don't generally use otherwise useful land. If you can farm a given piece of land you generally do. Farming makes more per acre than ranching, but if you have land that's too dry or not fertile enough to farm you put cows on it and you let them graze. So in fact ranching makes use of land that would otherwise be nonproductive.
I think the biggest issue is that they consume foods that must be farmed.

And yes burping creates a lot of carbon.


There is literally a billion cows on this planet, all of which are substantially larger than humans.

If we got rid of them tomorrow food prices would crash.

I think the practical solution would be to end subsidies that support cattle and to make passive regulations against their sale.


Something like a cattle quota that would only effect large scale cattle owners.


I don't know enough about it, but my understanding is that half the worlds land is used on cattle, in comparison something like 1/6th is needed for the equivalent mass of chickens as they grow to maturity much much faster. Not to mention the fact that white meat is far superior to red.

Obviously some of that land is useless and I don't think we should get rid of cattle altogether.

It just seems like shrinking cattle consumption is the most logical solution.

Especially if its something like a quota where small farmers( using worthless land) will make more money per cow instead of trying to tax the hell out of it, which will likely benefit those large scale operations.

I'm pro tapping in the low hanging fruit before we "invest" other peoples money into things that might never pay off.

The lowest level of intervention is to get your own consumption down. Driving an electric car is not helping the environment. It's migrating to a superior technology but it is not an example of how to live one's life.

If you believe in this global warming nonsense act as if you do instead of using this as a power game against others.

When it is obvious that the people that care actually act as if they care then maybe and i mean maybe we might start using government powers to coerce and manipulate people.

Until that time this carbon tax, green incentive nonsense is addressing 5 percent of the problem and responsible for 100 percent of the unnecessary tyranny.


I support banning fracking(if it does not hurt previously established industries and it doesn't limit the economic activity of an era, I think coal should be banned full stop, and we should do some modest restrictions on cattle). Otherwise keep government out of it until something makes sense.

Last edited by LakeLocker; May 29, 2019 at 5:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:18 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLocker View Post
There's a massive difference between choosing to do something out of free will and being forced to do so because of cost.



Because it's not the role of government to address the issue. It's the job of the individuals that care.



And by elegant you mean needlessly complicated and entirely likely to hurt people with less money than more.




Personal freedom, I don't live 100 kilometers way from the nearest employer, I don't own a factory, I'm not a small sized contractor, a farm owner etc.

I don't believe attacking people who work outside of the service economy is fair.

I don't believe in authoritarian government laws that take from the average person blindly without having any understanding of their life circumstances.

Especially when we know dam well that money is going to green start ups subsidies in wealthy places like Waterloo and Silicon valley.

You also make the outlandish assumption that because I consume little that not effected by how carbon taxes might effect my employer.





Because manipulating pricing is manipulating people.

If you believe that its a problem take care of your own dam house.

If you don't consume much already attack people on your side before you attack people who aren't so concerned.
And yet you support a cow tax. So you are onboard with manipulating behavior, something that government does all the time, just not by one particularly efficient mechanism.

If you truly are against government using its power, then you should start with the myriad other ways they do so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:28 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
And yet you support a cow tax. So you are onboard with manipulating behavior, something that government does all the time, just not by one particularly efficient mechanism.

If you truly are against government using its power, then you should start with the myriad other ways they do so.
Coercion is a necessary evil.

Just because I accept that it must be done occasionally does not mean I support it openly.

I am pro reducing cattle, because it produces a massive proportion of the waste and there is an easy viable solution for nutrition which isn't any less nutritious nor more expensive.

Reducing cattle will hurt the smallest number of people and will decrease the cost of goods for the poor and not increase it.

It will free up land for affordable housing.

It will make food cheaper.

And if we tie it into reasonable resource management we can also support existing industries.(i.e. create massive hunting grounds, farming of buffalo meat etc).

It's a very low hanging fruit both in cost and in terms of goverment oppression.

I am not directly for a tax, I'd prefer a quota system that will help cattle owners to recapture their losses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:41 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,662
Cow tax or quota, call it what you like the end result is the same. Prices will rise, and it's the government manipulating behaviors. In a very innefficient, authoritarian way.

Instead, let the market decide with a slight tweak - put a price on something that is currently free. If you can't stomach a set price, put a cap on emissions instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:50 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Cow tax or quota, call it what you like the end result is the same. Prices will rise, and it's the government manipulating behaviors. In a very innefficient, authoritarian way.
A quota doesn't give the government money and doesn't introduce a severe conflict of interest.

It doesn't introduce new costs to the average consumer and it will only effect farmers that can't be part of the quota.

If the quota is set up correctly it will put more money in the pockets of farmers.

This has been done in hunting already and has created a whole new industry supporting sport hunters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Instead, let the market decide with a slight tweak - put a price on something that is currently free. If you can't stomach a set price, put a cap on emissions instead.
This is just fundamentally dishonest.

Your trying to alter behavior, it will only work if people have to change their lifestyles.

And energy happens to be connect to virtually every aspect of ones lifestyle.

People living in urban areas working in service economies will be marginally effect as they aren't reliant on carbon and can pay off the difference. This difference will be absorbed by a reduced cost of living.

People that are well off generally rely on traditional industries, don't live in urban areas, and have relatively fixed costs of living.


Your being completely dishonest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:58 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,662
What am I being dishonest about?

Of course we are trying to change behavior, that's the entire point. And there is nothing wrong with that, if the government couldn't do that there would be no point of a government and we would live in anarchy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:03 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
I'm 100% with milomilo - specifically taxing cows would be stupid, if we can instead have a general tax that would treat the bad aspect of cows the exact same way it would treat everything else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:06 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLocker View Post
This is just fundamentally dishonest.

Your [sic] trying to alter behavior
???
There's nothing dishonest there. Of course we're trying to alter "traditional" polluting, planet-destroying behavior that dates back to a time when we collectively didn't realize how important it was in the long run to behave sustainably towards the planet.

No one is trying to hide that fact.

You may as well say that laws are fundamentally dishonest - people's natural behavior (as animals) would be to want to kill the neighbor in order to steal their nice stuff, but we're "altering" that with laws making it illegal, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:10 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLocker View Post
Reducing cattle will hurt the smallest number of people and will decrease the cost of goods for the poor and not increase it.

It will free up land for affordable housing.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:13 PM
Jaws Jaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
How is that working out?

It will work out fine
https://energyhub.org/solar-energy-maps-canada/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:14 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
(Also: This conversation is truly a blast from the past - Allan83 and Stryker discussing cows on SSP Canada in 2019! )
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:16 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,823
Bumped to thispage....Sorry, i was hoping for a response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Is the St Lawrence flooding again? I remember going to Gananoque in the summer of 2017 and seeing dozens of cottages on Islands partially submerged. I would assume since the Great Lakes are flooding again to near or abover record levels in just 2 years it would be happening again down stream.

Here is Lake Ontario, the break-wall should be about a metre above the water.

2019 Lake Ontario flooding - birds on submerged breakwall by Jeremy Gilbert, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:16 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws View Post
Your map makes no sense. Here's a better one:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:17 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
I mean, Jaws, you might as well post this, and conclude that Bavaria's solar potential is amazing! I mean, it's orange!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:29 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Is the St Lawrence flooding again?
Nope, don't think so, as far as I know. (Still high, but not anywhere near what it was a few weeks ago.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 8:08 PM
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,617
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 will always be more expensive because the value of the land is inflated.
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 4:58 AM.

     

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