5 ms·

Check out the Ontario grid. 91% zero-carbon. [1] Quebec at 99%. [2] It's hardly a subsistence lifestyle up there. You've just got to, you know, execute on it. T

Check out the Ontario grid. 91% zero-carbon. [1] Quebec at 99%. [2] It's hardly a subsistence lifestyle up there. You've just got to, you know, execute on it. This accounts for 60% of the Canadian population. [1] ON: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... [2] QC: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...

telotortium 4y ago
That's all hydroelectricity - that's not a form of renewable energy that can scale to the whole planet (and virtually every suitable river for it has already been exploited).
- WalterBright 4y ago
  In Washington State we demolish hydro dams to save the fish. https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restor...
bluefirebrand 4y ago
Ontario and Quebec are relatively small populations on the world scale. The per capita usage may be high in those provinces but the overall generation required to meet their needs is still relatively low. Also, hydroelectric dams are not necessarily viable everywhere.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Ontario + Quebec is about 60% the population of California too, and most of Ontario is powered by three nuclear power plants: Bruce, Pickering and Darlington.
  - egberts1 4y ago
    California only has one nuclear plant left.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      The question was 'is it possible' and 'is it sustainable' - it sure is. Even if some so-called environmentalists would rather run coal and oil and natural gas plants in lieu of the safest and lowest-carbon energy we have: nuclear. A 'subsistence existence' as parent called it, it is not.
deepnotderp 4y ago
That’s mostly hydropower iirc. Hydro is almost always the cheapest energy today, if we could get it elsewhere we would.
Guthur 4y ago
You and others are missing all the network of hydrocarbon based energy that allows you to survive, farming, mining, transport etc, your electrical grid is only a portion of a world wide system built upon on tap energy. The weather will never ever be an on tap energy source.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Transport and mining can be electrified and will probably in time. Farming at our scale will probably continue to require oil as an input, and that's just fine. Same with certain kinds of manufacturing, etc. Once we stop setting it on fire we'll have a lot more for these purposes and it should be significantly cheaper. Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear can absolutely handle our non-farming needs. It will still contribute to our lives and lifestyles sure, but much less.

telotortium 4y ago

That's all hydroelectricity - that's not a form of renewable energy that can scale to the whole planet (and virtually every suitable river for it has already been exploited).

WalterBright 4y ago
In Washington State we demolish hydro dams to save the fish. https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restor...

bluefirebrand 4y ago

Ontario and Quebec are relatively small populations on the world scale. The per capita usage may be high in those provinces but the overall generation required to meet their needs is still relatively low. Also, hydroelectric dams are not necessarily viable everywhere.

arcticbull 4y ago
Ontario + Quebec is about 60% the population of California too, and most of Ontario is powered by three nuclear power plants: Bruce, Pickering and Darlington.
- egberts1 4y ago
  California only has one nuclear plant left.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    The question was 'is it possible' and 'is it sustainable' - it sure is. Even if some so-called environmentalists would rather run coal and oil and natural gas plants in lieu of the safest and lowest-carbon energy we have: nuclear. A 'subsistence existence' as parent called it, it is not.

deepnotderp 4y ago

That’s mostly hydropower iirc. Hydro is almost always the cheapest energy today, if we could get it elsewhere we would.

Guthur 4y ago

You and others are missing all the network of hydrocarbon based energy that allows you to survive, farming, mining, transport etc, your electrical grid is only a portion of a world wide system built upon on tap energy. The weather will never ever be an on tap energy source.

arcticbull 4y ago
Transport and mining can be electrified and will probably in time. Farming at our scale will probably continue to require oil as an input, and that's just fine. Same with certain kinds of manufacturing, etc. Once we stop setting it on fire we'll have a lot more for these purposes and it should be significantly cheaper. Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear can absolutely handle our non-farming needs. It will still contribute to our lives and lifestyles sure, but much less.