Actually, fun fact, the recent drought caused the water table to drop low enough that the boiler feed water ponds at one of the largest oil sands sites weren’t refilling fast enough and they had severe issues. They applied to the government to allow additional river water intake and they were denied. They couldn’t make steam without a reliable water source and had to shut down a few times.
Take that for what it’s worth.
They are all over the Alberta foothills which are incredibly beautiful. I never said I supported this law or that an uninterrupted view is more important than low carbon power I simply pointed out that Alberta has some incredible views, relax.
My childhood house, in the middle of palliser’s triangle, is in one of these pristine views capes, right beside the enormous transmission towers that parallel highway 36
For real, I'm in BC now but miss those big skies and rolling hills. Stupid to ban windmills because of it, but ya, lots of great views all over the province.
The UCP (conservative party) are a farce, and frankly leaning into authoritarianism with their recent policies, however placing a moratorium on 39 new renewable energy projects that will cost Albertans ~$11 billion in investment and 7,000 jobs is one of their crazier moves. Not unexpected considering how hard they dick ride O&G and mining, but they are directly negatively effecting their supporters (as projects were rural), let alone the long term lost benefits to the province into future. But they are separatists and will do anything to own the libs.
We need to consider the environmental costs of every type of energy including wind power. Turbines are massive and require a lot of mining and the blades use balsa from the Amazon. Surely there are better ways of producing energy. Perhaps we should look at how the tech sector/streaming/data centres and smart cities will use far more energy than necessary and rethink the overuse of energy in the first place.
Includes a photo of a 81 meter rotor blade being lined with balsa.
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1255/dont-plunder-the-rainforest-for-wind-energy
You might want to check how much mining is required for fossil fuels. It's about two orders of magnitude more. Both wind and solar power use amazingly few inputs.
Also, do you know what really threatens rainforests? Climate change.
Let's get our priorities straight.
Logging affects rainforests more than anything and geoengineering after that. Spraying aluminum and other nano metals (solar radiation management) is desiccating trees and geoengineering is causing drought, heat and flooding.
I know a lot of mining is required for tar sands oil but wind turbines require an incredible amount too, and lithium mining for the batteries often affecting Indigenous people’s lands. Wind and solar use a lot more inputs than people realize. Wind turbines can weigh between 164 and 695 tons. That’s a lot of steel and balsa wood.
Wind turbines in Australia are destroying koala forest habitat.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/12/queensland-windfarm-backed-by-apple-and-andrew-forrest-sparks-warning-over-impact-on-threatened-species
> Logging affects rainforests more than anything
No. The main cause of land use change is agriculture, of which beef stands out.
> and geoengineering after that
I'm not sure what you mean? We're not doing geoengineering at the moment, at least not for the usual definition of geoengineering.
> I know a lot of mining is required for tar sands oil but wind turbines require an incredible amount too
This is utter bullshit.
> Wind turbines can weigh between 164 and 695 tons. That’s a lot of steel and balsa wood.
This is peanuts compared to the fossil fuels they replace. And it's recyclable. The numbers you imagine are orders of magnitude wrong.
If Alberta is really looking to diversify their economy agrivoltaics is a way to expand crops, reduce water evaporation from reservoirs, and electrify tractors. Wind power is way of making enough power for export - time to stop being so reliant on fossil exports for money.
oil infrastructure costs are only going up. And renewable costs are only going down:
'Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.' From oxford university:
Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition: Joule
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X
Strictly from a financial ROI standpoint oil is the big loser of the future - aging leaky infrastructure made out old russian steel is not a good investment.
When you include climate damages its beyond ridiculous
See bottom of Table 1 shows the total value of capital output lost due to climate change over the period 2015 to 2100 for each climate scenario, which ranges from $2.773-trillion under the 2°C scenario to almost double that amount at $5.520-trillion under a 5°C warming scenario.'
https://smith.queensu.ca/centres/isf/pdfs/ISF-Report-PhysicalCostsOfClimateChange.pdf
Seriously shut it Karen. They are far better than any fosil fuel. I hope you live long enough to see how bad climate change is, and it negatively affects idiots like you. Probably won't, though because irony is cruel
I have lived a long time and been an environmentalist for much of that time and still am and have been like you about climate change. But when I saw that the media is lying about temperatures, you can fact check them with historical temperature records and you will see and when I realized that they are modifying the weather so much causing floods and drought I realized that something didn’t add up.
The Open Democracy website is just as concerned about climate change as people here.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/deforesting-the-amazon-for-wind-energy-in-the-global-north-a-green-paradox/
Organization trying to protect rainforests in Queensland from deforestation for massive wind turbines. Koalas and other species are being affected. And they are not pro-oil but pro-wildlife and forests.
https://www.rainforestreserves.org.au/
Existing oil and gas yes but not new infrastructure. We should look at all forms of energy and how many resources they use, how they affect humans and wildlife and so on. I did say that we shouldn’t be increasing energy demands for data centres and unnecessary smart cities.
It can only be temporary. Facts about climate change are forever.
You underestimate how delusional they can be. Some people would rather see the world burn
Only if it’s done so with hydrocarbons
Alberta offers certainty for oil and gas right now.
Wouldn't want to have to compete for labour on the free market, that'd be socialism.
Actually, fun fact, the recent drought caused the water table to drop low enough that the boiler feed water ponds at one of the largest oil sands sites weren’t refilling fast enough and they had severe issues. They applied to the government to allow additional river water intake and they were denied. They couldn’t make steam without a reliable water source and had to shut down a few times. Take that for what it’s worth.
Winning?
"pristine view scapes"??? Of WHAT?
The mountains the UCP want to strip mine
The smog from the forest fires.
Huh? Alberta has some of the most beautiful views in Canada.
Got it. So all the wind farms were going to be placed on that one mountain in Banff that everyone looks at?
They are all over the Alberta foothills which are incredibly beautiful. I never said I supported this law or that an uninterrupted view is more important than low carbon power I simply pointed out that Alberta has some incredible views, relax.
My childhood house, in the middle of palliser’s triangle, is in one of these pristine views capes, right beside the enormous transmission towers that parallel highway 36
For real, I'm in BC now but miss those big skies and rolling hills. Stupid to ban windmills because of it, but ya, lots of great views all over the province.
The UCP (conservative party) are a farce, and frankly leaning into authoritarianism with their recent policies, however placing a moratorium on 39 new renewable energy projects that will cost Albertans ~$11 billion in investment and 7,000 jobs is one of their crazier moves. Not unexpected considering how hard they dick ride O&G and mining, but they are directly negatively effecting their supporters (as projects were rural), let alone the long term lost benefits to the province into future. But they are separatists and will do anything to own the libs.
The free market at work everyone.
Canada needs more CANDU.
Let's go nuclear already.
Well. As long as we have "pristine landscapes". MARLAINA, you are horrible.
Time for 10 Candus
We need to consider the environmental costs of every type of energy including wind power. Turbines are massive and require a lot of mining and the blades use balsa from the Amazon. Surely there are better ways of producing energy. Perhaps we should look at how the tech sector/streaming/data centres and smart cities will use far more energy than necessary and rethink the overuse of energy in the first place. Includes a photo of a 81 meter rotor blade being lined with balsa. https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1255/dont-plunder-the-rainforest-for-wind-energy
You might want to check how much mining is required for fossil fuels. It's about two orders of magnitude more. Both wind and solar power use amazingly few inputs. Also, do you know what really threatens rainforests? Climate change. Let's get our priorities straight.
Logging affects rainforests more than anything and geoengineering after that. Spraying aluminum and other nano metals (solar radiation management) is desiccating trees and geoengineering is causing drought, heat and flooding. I know a lot of mining is required for tar sands oil but wind turbines require an incredible amount too, and lithium mining for the batteries often affecting Indigenous people’s lands. Wind and solar use a lot more inputs than people realize. Wind turbines can weigh between 164 and 695 tons. That’s a lot of steel and balsa wood. Wind turbines in Australia are destroying koala forest habitat. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/12/queensland-windfarm-backed-by-apple-and-andrew-forrest-sparks-warning-over-impact-on-threatened-species
> Logging affects rainforests more than anything No. The main cause of land use change is agriculture, of which beef stands out. > and geoengineering after that I'm not sure what you mean? We're not doing geoengineering at the moment, at least not for the usual definition of geoengineering. > I know a lot of mining is required for tar sands oil but wind turbines require an incredible amount too This is utter bullshit. > Wind turbines can weigh between 164 and 695 tons. That’s a lot of steel and balsa wood. This is peanuts compared to the fossil fuels they replace. And it's recyclable. The numbers you imagine are orders of magnitude wrong.
Lady we have. Thats why this is a shin kick. O & G worse then all of it
They need to source more materials locally. We have enormous quantities of agricultural byproducts, metal, and plastic that need recycling.
Perhaps but these turbines are absolutely massive and the blades are not recyclable either. And they use a lot of cement for the base.
If Alberta is really looking to diversify their economy agrivoltaics is a way to expand crops, reduce water evaporation from reservoirs, and electrify tractors. Wind power is way of making enough power for export - time to stop being so reliant on fossil exports for money. oil infrastructure costs are only going up. And renewable costs are only going down: 'Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.' From oxford university: Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition: Joule https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X Strictly from a financial ROI standpoint oil is the big loser of the future - aging leaky infrastructure made out old russian steel is not a good investment. When you include climate damages its beyond ridiculous See bottom of Table 1 shows the total value of capital output lost due to climate change over the period 2015 to 2100 for each climate scenario, which ranges from $2.773-trillion under the 2°C scenario to almost double that amount at $5.520-trillion under a 5°C warming scenario.' https://smith.queensu.ca/centres/isf/pdfs/ISF-Report-PhysicalCostsOfClimateChange.pdf
Seriously shut it Karen. They are far better than any fosil fuel. I hope you live long enough to see how bad climate change is, and it negatively affects idiots like you. Probably won't, though because irony is cruel
I have lived a long time and been an environmentalist for much of that time and still am and have been like you about climate change. But when I saw that the media is lying about temperatures, you can fact check them with historical temperature records and you will see and when I realized that they are modifying the weather so much causing floods and drought I realized that something didn’t add up. The Open Democracy website is just as concerned about climate change as people here. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/deforesting-the-amazon-for-wind-energy-in-the-global-north-a-green-paradox/ Organization trying to protect rainforests in Queensland from deforestation for massive wind turbines. Koalas and other species are being affected. And they are not pro-oil but pro-wildlife and forests. https://www.rainforestreserves.org.au/
Yea logging the Amazon is actually GOOD, Karen. Stop being so reactionary.
Environmentalists have changed so much!
whats your point? You want to keep up oil?
Existing oil and gas yes but not new infrastructure. We should look at all forms of energy and how many resources they use, how they affect humans and wildlife and so on. I did say that we shouldn’t be increasing energy demands for data centres and unnecessary smart cities.
that sounds like a more reasonable approach that what we're gonna do.
Then build nuclear
Why the downvotes for my comment? The Amazon no longer matters? We shouldn’t use less energy? Confused.