this blog has moved to a new address: daveberta.ca

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to http://daveberta.ca.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

albertans could leave carbon capture in their dust...

Just think how much of an international powerhouse Alberta could be if we looked beyond the oil rigs and tar sands? With $2 billion being spent on harebrained short-term solutions like carbon capture and sequestration, Albertans could get a better bang for their buck if we jumped ahead of the curve on other new innovative long-term solutions and technologies...

Dutch venture plans cheap, powerful electric cars

VIJAY JOSHI, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SHAH ALAM, Malaysia - A Dutch-based company announced plans Tuesday to produce affordable electric cars by the end of 2009, promising they will be much more powerful than existing models and have zero emissions.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Alberta could be so much more.

Kyle G. Olsen said...

Well, you still need electricity for all those cars. In Alberta that means coal, and CCS is a good way to reduce our impact without going nuclear (which you oppose) or flooding the far north for a hydro plant.

Anonymous said...

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080811/cost-nuclear-energy-rising-out-reach

"A detailed cost comparison of nuclear versus wind energy shows that nuclear energy will soon no longer be cost competitive with wind energy if present trends continue.

While nuclear energy is regarded as one of the cheapest sources of power available -- given the enormous amount of energy released from the splitting of atoms -- and wind is considered relatively expensive, analysis of a number of current projects using publicly available data indicates that wind energy has closed the gap in price per kilowatt.

Furthermore, price trends are much less favorable for nuclear projects -- cost estimates of new nuclear plants have doubled and tripled in some instances in just one or two years. Prices for wind power are also rising, but at more pedestrian rates closer to 10% annually.

This is something well worth considering before welcoming a nuclear renaissance -- as ratepayers may be saddled with unaffordable bills and the nation may also end up with a large, unanticipated bill for the hidden cost of nuclear waste disposal."

Ken Chapman said...

Dave - CCS is not a sustainable activity. However CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is. Take those tired old wells and make them more efficient.

Maybe we won't have to drill a bunch more new wells and tear up the landscape and destroy habitat anymore.

The old boys in the conventional business can get serious about reclamation then too. There are too few serious reclamations efforts happpening in conventional O&G and virtually none in the oil sands.

Anonymous said...

By your logic why should the gov't waste money on keeping people alive who are only going to die anyways? shouldn't we invest our taxpayers dollars into long-term solutions like more babies?

You Liberals terrify me.

daveberta said...

I terrify myself sometimes, but for different reasons.

Jason Bo Green said...

I lean towards pro-nuclear. I'm a total environmentalist - I bike year-round, I stopped eating meat partly due to carbon concerns, and I use non-carbon hydro in my home. I'm not concerned about nuclear; I believe CANDUs are safe, and three cubic metres of radioactive waste a year sounds better to me than hundreds of thousands of heavy metal gases spewed into the atmosphere. To me, nuclear might be our best bridge into a non-nuclear future.