3 ms·

>Still. I don't think it's realistic to expect to heat Canadian cities or produce plastics by the millions of tonnes, with just heat pumps and solar power. The

by qball 6y ago

>Still. I don't think it's realistic to expect to heat Canadian cities or produce plastics by the millions of tonnes, with just heat pumps and solar power. The vast majority of Canadian electricity production is already zero-emissions (in excess of 80%, including nuclear generation, which delivers 60% of the energy for the largest province and 15% of the nationwide supply). 'Hydro' and 'electricity' are synonyms nationwide for a very good reason. Natural gas is still generally used for heating, but most of the country typically sees winters too cold for heat pumps to work and insufficient volcanic activity for geothermal, so it generally makes sense to do this. Canada has, or had, world-class nuclear engineering capabilities and a significant quantity of uranium to use; the time to put them to use is now, while the US nuclear industry is still buried under miles of red tape and misplaced anti-nuclear sentiment.

retrac 6y ago
Yes, good insights. Hydroelectricity is definitely Canada's blessing that could enable a relatively quick pivot towards a less carbon intense economy, compared to many other developed nations. Still, Canada's future hydroelectric potential is relatively limited. Most of the more promising and less disruptive sites are long-built. Electricity is only a third of primary energy production. If we are to switch transport, industry and heating all to electricity, we will need to approximately double our electrical generation capacity. > Natural gas is still generally used for heating, but most of the country typically sees winters too cold for heat pumps to work and insufficient volcanic activity for geothermal, so it generally makes sense to do this. It makes sense, but we still have to get rid of it. Domestic heating alone from natural gas accounts for roughly 10% of national emissions, which is more than the entire Danish output of GHG in all sectors. When you add in the natural gas for industry it comes to more like 30% of GHG output. Yes, it's certainly cleaner than coal. But it's not carbon neutral. Carbon neutral in practice means we will need to either increase the price of natural gas about 5x over current, or subsidize the cost of electric heating about 5x, or come up with some other form of relatively cheap heat. Otherwise people will not switch due to the cost. I hope that SMRs and district heating might offer an unconventional way out of this puzzle.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >But it's not carbon neutral I think people are confused about what carbon neutral means, in a deep philosophical sense. It's a property of a list of numbers you add up. It's not a property of each of those items individually. It's like profitability, whether something is profitable depends on what is under the umbrella. Berkshire Hathaway can be profitable while one business is making a lot of money and another is losing a lot. But, say, Mens Wearhouse, couldn't deal with covid, because it didn't have, like, a videoconferencing unit. Because the issue is global climate change, caused by global CO2 levels, it makes no sense to talk about minute units of energy usage being neutral or not. It really feeds into the right wing trope about climate change being a religion, in my opinion. The idea that every facet of life should have equal carbon intensity is nutty.
  - retrac 6y ago
    I wouldn't consider myself particularly radical on this. I see a reasonable period for this change being about 50 years and I would not expect us to be below 30% of current emissions before the second half of this century, even if we adopted a breakneck pace. Canada cannot control anything but its own emissions, really. It is possible to run Canadian society in a way with very low carbon emissions compared to right now, while maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Given the scale of impact, primarily on the poorest peoples of the world for our material benefit, it seems a strong moral imperative to me, yes. If both are economically feasible, the choice between nuclear and natural gas for energy is not a trivial whim. It's more like choosing to strip-mine a third world country vs. a sustainable mining practice for our supply of a mineral, when both are fairly viable processes economically. It's quite blindly and unnecessarily injurious to others, just to realize a relatively small profit. Dismissing it as "minute" amounts of energy is a fallacy. It's all minute amounts of energy. When you add up how much Texans use for recreational drives on Saturday, Albertans to keep their homes 24 °C in January, the folks on Okinawa to keep their air conditioners running, and the nouveau riche of Malaysia jet-setting around the world -- it really starts to add up. You can dismiss all emissions with "it's a minute amount" with this sort of argument.

by qball 6y ago

retrac 6y ago

Yes, good insights. Hydroelectricity is definitely Canada's blessing that could enable a relatively quick pivot towards a less carbon intense economy, compared to many other developed nations. Still, Canada's future hydroelectric potential is relatively limited. Most of the more promising and less disruptive sites are long-built. Electricity is only a third of primary energy production. If we are to switch transport, industry and heating all to electricity, we will need to approximately double our electrical generation capacity. > Natural gas is still generally used for heating, but most of the country typically sees winters too cold for heat pumps to work and insufficient volcanic activity for geothermal, so it generally makes sense to do this. It makes sense, but we still have to get rid of it. Domestic heating alone from natural gas accounts for roughly 10% of national emissions, which is more than the entire Danish output of GHG in all sectors. When you add in the natural gas for industry it comes to more like 30% of GHG output. Yes, it's certainly cleaner than coal. But it's not carbon neutral. Carbon neutral in practice means we will need to either increase the price of natural gas about 5x over current, or subsidize the cost of electric heating about 5x, or come up with some other form of relatively cheap heat. Otherwise people will not switch due to the cost. I hope that SMRs and district heating might offer an unconventional way out of this puzzle.

perl4ever 6y ago
>But it's not carbon neutral I think people are confused about what carbon neutral means, in a deep philosophical sense. It's a property of a list of numbers you add up. It's not a property of each of those items individually. It's like profitability, whether something is profitable depends on what is under the umbrella. Berkshire Hathaway can be profitable while one business is making a lot of money and another is losing a lot. But, say, Mens Wearhouse, couldn't deal with covid, because it didn't have, like, a videoconferencing unit. Because the issue is global climate change, caused by global CO2 levels, it makes no sense to talk about minute units of energy usage being neutral or not. It really feeds into the right wing trope about climate change being a religion, in my opinion. The idea that every facet of life should have equal carbon intensity is nutty.
- retrac 6y ago
  I wouldn't consider myself particularly radical on this. I see a reasonable period for this change being about 50 years and I would not expect us to be below 30% of current emissions before the second half of this century, even if we adopted a breakneck pace. Canada cannot control anything but its own emissions, really. It is possible to run Canadian society in a way with very low carbon emissions compared to right now, while maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Given the scale of impact, primarily on the poorest peoples of the world for our material benefit, it seems a strong moral imperative to me, yes. If both are economically feasible, the choice between nuclear and natural gas for energy is not a trivial whim. It's more like choosing to strip-mine a third world country vs. a sustainable mining practice for our supply of a mineral, when both are fairly viable processes economically. It's quite blindly and unnecessarily injurious to others, just to realize a relatively small profit. Dismissing it as "minute" amounts of energy is a fallacy. It's all minute amounts of energy. When you add up how much Texans use for recreational drives on Saturday, Albertans to keep their homes 24 °C in January, the folks on Okinawa to keep their air conditioners running, and the nouveau riche of Malaysia jet-setting around the world -- it really starts to add up. You can dismiss all emissions with "it's a minute amount" with this sort of argument.