[darwink]

Awesome that they're investing, but we/they better figure out a source of sustainable energy for it. Alberta accounts for 11.6% of Canada's population, but contributes 72.1% of emissions from electricity generation, and this is probably the most energy intensive thing you can build.

Its going down at least. But the last bit is the hardest - displacing natural gas. I have high hope for the Eavor Loop geothermal baseload system, and the Proton Technoligies hydrogen generation tech.

Using the technological gains of multistage fracking to create emissions free electricity and hydrogen.

 

[Nimbus]

Its going down at least. But the last bit is the hardest - displacing natural gas. I have high hope for the Eavor Loop geothermal baseload system, and the Proton Technoligies hydrogen generation tech.

Using the technological gains of multistage fracking to create emissions free electricity and hydrogen.

Amazon announced Wednesday it will purchase power from a massive new solar farm in Alberta, marking the e-commerce giant's second renewable energy investment in Canada.

Construction began in the fall of 2020 on Travers Solar, a $700-million, 465-MW project southeast of Calgary, which its developers say will be the largest solar photovoltaic project in Canada and one of the largest in the world.

Privately held Greengate Power Corp. of Calgary has been working on the project for four years and is expected to have it completed by 2022.

"It'll consist of 1.3 million solar panels spread over more than 3,000 acres (1,215 hectares) of farmland," said Dan Balaban, CEO of Greengate Power. "And it'll produce a sustainable source of energy for more than 150,000 homes."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-amazon-solar-energy-power-vulcan-travers-1.6077152

 

[Beltline_B]

Awesome that they're investing, but we/they better figure out a source of sustainable energy for it. Alberta accounts for 11.6% of Canada's population, but contributes 72.1% of emissions from electricity generation, and this is probably the most energy intensive thing you can build.

I read somewhere in one of the articles that Amazon will be buying their power from the Travers solar farm near Vulcan, which apparently is going to be the biggest one in Canada, and one of the biggest ones in the world.

 

[whatchyyc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1458215303897182210

Edit: YouTube upload with better quality

 

[UrbanWarrior]

The windows (and therefore the asbestos) are finally out of the old CBE building in the East Village. I imagine demolition won’t be far behind…

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

The windows (and therefore the asbestos) are finally out of the old CBE building in the East Village. I imagine demolition won’t be far behind…

View attachment 362121View attachment 362122

Hopefully something will actually get built on that site soon. I'm tired of seeing so many empty lots in East Village. The moment seems to have really slowed.

 

[Calgcouver]

Awesome that they're investing, but we/they better figure out a source of sustainable energy for it. Alberta accounts for 11.6% of Canada's population, but contributes 72.1% of emissions from electricity generation, and this is probably the most energy intensive thing you can build.

Damn, that is an alarming stat i didn't know that. Makes the statement Yves Blanchet made about the referendum even funnier and more valid: https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta...itches-green-equalization-in-canada-1.5650984

Can anyone that knows something about power generation weigh in on something for me?
1) Is nuclear just too costly to build? It seems like a major investment in nuclear power generation could probably phase out coal in the short to medium term, but i don't know why it isn't a focus.
2) I keep hearing from more Conservative folks that our electrical grid would need major upgrades to support EV charging in a larger amount of households. Does anyone know if this is true and what the issue is?

I don't know very much about this topic obviously and i'm sure there are a few people on here that could probably answer these.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Damn, that is an alarming stat i didn't know that. Makes the statement Yves Blanchet made about the referendum even funnier and more valid: https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta...itches-green-equalization-in-canada-1.5650984

It makes sense, given that 75% of the Canadian population lives in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. All of these provinces generate close to 100% of their electricity from zero-emission sources. Wind power overtook natural gas years ago in Ontario. Alberta is the only big province that generates most of its electricity from fossil fuels. In fact, fossil fuels make up a higher proportion of electricity sources in Alberta than any other province or territory (excluding Nunavut, with uses an insignificant amount of electricity for its 35,000 residents).

 

[Surrealplaces]

Damn, that is an alarming stat i didn't know that. Makes the statement Yves Blanchet made about the referendum even funnier and more valid: https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta...itches-green-equalization-in-canada-1.5650984

Can anyone that knows something about power generation weigh in on something for me?
1) Is nuclear just too costly to build? It seems like a major investment in nuclear power generation could probably phase out coal in the short to medium term, but i don't know why it isn't a focus.
2) I keep hearing from more Conservative folks that our electrical grid would need major upgrades to support EV charging in a larger amount of households. Does anyone know if this is true and what the issue is?

I don't know very much about this topic obviously and i'm sure there are a few people on here that could probably answer these.

My understanding is that with natural gas being as cheap as it has been, it didn't make sense to go to nuclear power. That might change if the price of natural gas keeps going up, and if we paid the same price for natural gas as they do in Europe or Japan, other energy sources would get consideration.

As far as the statement from Blanchet goes, it's funny, but also not very realistic, and just more of the same divisive politics we need to get away from. His province has been an indirect beneficiary of Alberta's oils sands for decades. A large portion of the carbon emissions from Alberta goes toward the Oil Sands extraction, which isn't just for Alberta.

Carbon emissions from the Oil Sands is about 70MT of Alberta's total which is 272MT. Not an insignificant amount, and that number of 70MT is just from extraction, and not including emissions indirectly related to the oil sands.

That said, and aside from Blanchette's comments, we still need to move away from oil and gas over the long-term, and now is a good time to get the ball rolling. It's one of the reasons I'm happy to see all these huge solar projects coming in.

 

[Silence&Motion]

My understanding is that with natural gas being as cheap as it has been, it didn't make sense to go to nuclear power. That might change if the price of natural gas keeps going up, and if we paid the same price for natural gas as they do in Europe or Japan, other energy sources would get consideration.

As far as the statement from Blanchet goes, it's funny, but also not very realistic, and just more of the same divisive politics we need to get away from. His province has been in indirect beneficiary of Alberta's oils sands for decades. A large portion of the carbon emissions from Alberta goes toward the Oil Sands extraction, which isn't just for Alberta. I don't know the amounts used by the oil sands, but it's a significant amount, and in the end it's a Canada issue.

Looks like the carbon emissions from the Oil Sands is about 70MT of Alberta's total which is 272MT. Not an insignificant amount, and that number of 70MT is just from extraction, and not including emissions indirectly related to the oil sands.

It's pretty rich for Alberta to hold the following two positions: (1) The rest of Canada benefits financially from the oil sands, therefore the emissions generated from the oil sands should count for Canada as whole and not just Alberta. (2) The rest of Canada has no business trying to interfere with oil production in Alberta, whether it is capping emissions or blocking pipelines.

 

[Surrealplaces]

It's pretty rich for Alberta to hold the following two positions: (1) The rest of Canada benefits financially from the oil sands, therefore the emissions generated from the oil sands should count for Canada as whole and not just Alberta. (2) The rest of Canada has no business trying to interfere with oil production in Alberta, whether it is capping emissions or blocking pipelines.

I don't think it's rich. Canada has benefited as a whole from the Oil Sands, in the form of billions of dollars, especially Quebec. To my knowledge Western Canada still uses oil from the oil sands, and a large amount of that oil is also being exported to the U.S. Money from those exports gets dispersed around the country in different ways. There's no question that Canada as a country benefits from the oil sands. I'm not saying all of Canada is to blame, but Albertan's aren't the only ones to blame. If the rest of Canada stopped using oil from Alberta, stopped taking any royalties or revenues from Alberta oil, including money made off energy stocks or funds, stopped taking profit from products or services sold to Alberta, stopped having workers from other provinces work in the oil sands... then yeah it would be an Alberta only issue.

As far as Canada interfering with Alberta's production, I never said Canada had no business doing that (though others in Alberta have). Alberta's one of 10 provinces and is part of a larger country, Alberta will have to go with the general Canadian flow. It's one of the reasons I'd like to see green energy solution pursued more aggressively.

 

[Atticus]

If the rest of Canada uses or benefits from the production of Alberta's oil, then they are also to blame. We can argue about what percentage of blame goes to who or who is more at fault, etc.., but it's pointless. Alberta benefits the most, but at the end of the day SP is right, it's something Canada as whole will have to deal with. There'a a reason Trudeau helped keep TMX alive, as he could have easily kibosh it, and he didn't have to stick his neck out and purchase the pipeline. His government realizes how big a benefit the oil industry still has on Canada.
To be clear, I'm not advocating we stay the course, but I don't think Canada can point the finger at Alberta only. Though the statement by Blanchette is more of a cheap shot, and not meant to be constructive, at some point this is the direction things will be going. As an Albertan I'm aware of that.

It's pretty rich for Alberta to hold the following two positions: (1) The rest of Canada benefits financially from the oil sands, therefore the emissions generated from the oil sands should count for Canada as whole and not just Alberta. (2) The rest of Canada has no business trying to interfere with oil production in Alberta, whether it is capping emissions or blocking pipelines.

 

[Silence&Motion]

As far as Canada interfering with Alberta's production, I never said Canada had no business doing that (though others in Alberta have). Alberta's one of 10 provinces and is part of a larger country, Alberta will have to go with the general Canadian flow. It's one of the reasons I'd like to see green energy solution pursued more aggressively.

That is true. You didn't say that. Though this is basically the rhetorical position of our provincial government. The fact is, the other provinces' responsibility for oil sands emissions is exactly proportional to the amount of control those provinces exercise over the oil sands. Money may flow from the oil sands to Quebec through federal taxes, but the Province of Quebec has little direct control over the oil sands. The emissions equalization scheme that Blanchette is advocating would be a way for Quebec to try to exercise some control over the oil sands.

 

[adamyyc]

Damn, that is an alarming stat i didn't know that. Makes the statement Yves Blanchet made about the referendum even funnier and more valid: https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta...itches-green-equalization-in-canada-1.5650984

Can anyone that knows something about power generation weigh in on something for me?
1) Is nuclear just too costly to build? It seems like a major investment in nuclear power generation could probably phase out coal in the short to medium term, but i don't know why it isn't a focus.
2) I keep hearing from more Conservative folks that our electrical grid would need major upgrades to support EV charging in a larger amount of households. Does anyone know if this is true and what the issue is?

I don't know very much about this topic obviously and i'm sure there are a few people on here that could probably answer these.

I could see SMRs in operation in Alberta, and in particular in the oil sands and industrial heartland within 5 years. The benefit is that they can be deployed where required, thereby reducing transmission costs.

I doubt we see full scale reactors in Alberta. Although cost is a big detractor, I think that Alberta is a jurisdiction that will be more than willing to spend that money to reduce its emissions, going forward, while maintaining a stable supply of energy. Permitting and regulatory uncertainty seem like the biggest detractor (given the Feds would be involved). I’m also not sure if Alberta would be well suited for full scale nuclear since it does not have any large bodies of water. Not saying there aren’t any suitable locations near water, but are those suitable locations close enough to the areas that require energy while also being far enough away from population centres?

Coal should have been phased out by natural gas in AB by now, with the next goal to reduce reliance on natural gas, but AB is behind. I don’t believe natural gas should be eliminated entirely. A mix of energy sources is necessary (for reliability and cost stability). Alberta will be a world leader in 10 years with the combination of carbon capture to reduce emissions from fossil fuel generation like natural gas (which green groups oppose), phase out of coal, solar, wind, pumped storage, battery storage, hydrogen, heat waste recovery, etc.

 

[Surrealplaces]

That is true. You didn't say that. Though this is basically the rhetorical position of our provincial government. The fact is, the other provinces' responsibility for oil sands emissions is exactly proportional to the amount of control those provinces exercise over the oil sands. Money may flow from the oil sands to Quebec through federal taxes, but the Province of Quebec has little direct control over the oil sands. The emissions equalization scheme that Blanchette is advocating would be a way for Quebec to try to exercise some control over the oil sands.

Very true. As climate change worsens, I expect we'll see more finger pointing and blame, political battling, etc.. The best thing Alberta can do is speed up the process towards diversification and the use of green energy. O&G will be around for a while yet, but Alberta still needs to begin the transition, and the sooner the better.

Awesome that they're investing, but we/they better figure out a source of sustainable energy for it. Alberta accounts for 11.6% of Canada's population, but contributes 72.1% of emissions from electricity generation, and this is probably the most energy intensive thing you can build.

I wonder what the stats will look like when coal is completely phased out, and many of these solar projects come online? Even though gas is a carbon emitter it emits less than coal. We'll still be a ways out, but at least we'll be heading in the right direction.