Say what you want about carbon emissions etc.
Canada has proposed something to produce cheap electricity for the coming future of electric vechicles and electricity demand and cost
We all know how important electricity is in our modern world. Shut down the supply of electricity and the nation stops
That is correct, you can't do much of anything with out electricity. Factories demand electricity. Your house runs on electricity. The markets need electricity. Everything needs electricity or some electricty The only substitute for electricity is storage batteries which have proven unreliable, short term out put, dangerous when large batteries are used to power vechicles and all kinds of problems
Yes my lap top will run with out electricty. It has a battery which comes on in a heart beat if a storm knocks out our power supply. But if the electricity goes out, in a storm, I have to dig out the generator to power the water supply, heat the house and yes power the refrigerator, micro wave, TV and lights
Canada is proposing to build micro nuclear reactors.
In other words, many smaller reactors spread over more territory to hook up with the existing power grid
Canada is proposing to eliminate coal burning facilities and use more NG and nuclear power. Three of our 10 provinces have agreed to sign on to a new supply of energy
Now you may say carbon is not the problem.. But larger particles and smoke from coal burning plants do cause smog and air pollution. Does anybody remember the smog of LA
Has anybody experienced the smog in china from coal burning power plants
This may not be the answer some will want but I have to say, if we can eliminate smog, smoke etc. from the air, that is a plus in my book
And I think Canada has begun a new phase of power generation that will be acceptable to most people
Now I know the "save the planet" people are behind this venture, but I can see some positive results.
NG and nuclear power. What is there to not like about this idea, other than the coal industry.. Especially smaller muclear power plants that can be shut down quickly and with modern saftey feature, older power plants did not have
Canada has a long history with Candu power and this will only incorporate newer saftey features, as the technology is much more advanced from yrs ago. I have yet to hear many Nay sayers to this idea ,although I expect there will be some, as there are always some who don't like change. A small but important step for cheap energy.
Yea for Canada
"Now you may say carbon is not the problem.. But larger particles and smoke from coal burning plants do cause smog and air pollution. Does anybody remember the smog of LA
Has anybody experienced the smog in china from coal burning power plants
This may not be the answer some will want but I have to say, if we can eliminate smog, smoke etc. from the air, that is a plus in my book"
Wayne, we already have and use the solution to that problem..........industrial scrubbers and pollution control technologies.
China has been way behind in installing this technology in their coal burning plants.
"One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power with less emissions of criteria pollutants than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 83 percent, SO2 by 98 percent and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology."
metmike: With regards to smog in LA, none of that is caused by coal burning power plants. It's almost all from car/truck exhaust and those smog causing emissions have been cut by a massive amount since the 1970's by the most ingenous pollution fighting device in history.........the catalytic convertor.
"According to the non-profit Environment California, air pollution from cars and trucks across the state has decreased since the 1970s by more than 85 percent, with peak smog levels in the city of Los Angeles itself dropping some 70 percent. Meanwhile, California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has been tracking smog levels in the area since 1976, and reports the number of ozone advisories—where residents are advised to stay indoors due to unhealthy local accumulations of smog—fell from a high of 184 days in 1977 to between zero and a few days a year now.
“California’s efforts to reduce air pollution from cars and trucks have made the state’s air cleaner than it has been in decades and Californians are healthier as a result,” says Bernadette Del Chiaro, Environment California’s clean energy advocate. This is especially notable because the number of miles driven in California doubled since the 1970s even though emissions significantly dropped—meaning that vehicles have gotten considerably more fuel efficient over the years. “The technologies found on new car lots today were practically unimaginable even 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago,” adds Del Chiaro"
I am all for nuclear power.........though not because of CO2 emissions or related to the fake climate crisis.
Canada is definitely leading the way and deserves a huge pat on the back!
Nuclear power in Canada is provided by 19 commercial reactors with a net capacity of 13.5 Gigawatts (GWe), producing a total of 95.6 Terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, which accounted for 16.6% of the country's total electric energy generation in 2015. All but one of these reactors are located in Ontario where they produced 61% of the province's electricity in 2016 (91.7 TWh)
For me, the advantages outweigh the negatives/risks by a wide margin.
A few big accidents in the past because of avoidable mistakes make this source of reliable, efficient and almost unlimited pollution free energy unpopular/scary in a way similar to why people are afraid to fly.
One major reason is the use of Def in all large commercial engines, entering CA. This is an additive that engines after 2011 [I think] had to use
We had a small post on CA some time in the past, on MF, about commercial trucks older than [2011??] not being allowed into CA and the age going up each yr
This is all about DEF and technology in commercial engines. Take a look at Penske commercial trucks for sale. Anything 2011 or 2012 sells for almost nothing because they have to be prepared to run CA. Ryder is the same. I did not look at other rental commercial truck sale prices
Now the cayalitic [sp] converter made big strides and today with fuel injection and re-cycling unburned fuel back into the engine has resulted in cleaner burning engines. It has also robbed the muscle cars I loved to dust up the back roads, of their power, under the hood.. However, the turbo came in and then away we went again with power from a little box of an engine it was unbelievable My 2.6 litre car engine has as much or more speed then my big Hemi engine
SO technology has cleaned up the air, but with that danged DEF we have to burn in later larger commercial engines, both on road and in the field. We have only one tractor that doesn't need DEF. We have one Pick up with a 100 gal tank, strapped down in back, just for DEF, plus a towed deseil fuel tank. Talk about getting all tangled up with different fuel hoses. and the electric wires and wire clips needed to power the D.C motors
That DEF motor has to be made of plastic[which lasts about one yr] or an aluminum motor that I did not even ask what it cost
Now I agree coal burning can be clean burning and factories will have to decide if NG or clean burning coal technology works on the bottom line, so my statement about coal was a bit or a lot off base
Canada is agreeable to coal, so long as it is clean burning
Clean air in CA did not come with out a cost, but CA had to do something.
Just wait until the DEF tank runs dry. You need a computer to re-start the engine. No kidding because I did it this summer.