pyat

Their anti-nuclear stance is what does them in for me. I don't want to see money wasted on wind or solar (as that won't work in Ontario at least), and more hydro is *not* a good idea.

From:

I'd love some sort of publicly-funded solar arrays for individual houses and stuff.

From:

I don't really see the advantage of that. When you look at the energy costs of producing the solar pannels in the first place (and of course replacing them) it ends up being more energy efficient to just use power off the grid.

From:

Get some R&D on making less shitty solar panels, then...

From:

Oh, sure, I agree.

Not going to happen in the next 4 years though. I highly doubt they'd be ready for use here in the next 20 even.

From:

I could use some solar drapes...

From:

Won't work? *is confused*

From:

When you take into account the energy costs of producing the solar panels and windmills (not to mention other issues with mining the materials) compared to how little they will produce in this climate they really don't look like good options.

From:

So what is the energy cost of producing the solar panels?

From:

1) What data are you looking at in terms of what the equipment can produce in this climate? If it's based on what was common during the 70s, then yes, absolutely -- but those products don't compare in efficiency to contemporary products.

2) Southern Ontario is at no more of a disadvantage for sustainable energy production than some of the leading world centres of same -- Denmark and Sweden, for instance. As it happens, I went on a tour of Home Alive at Everdale Farm last weekend -- their primary sources of energy are photovoltaic laminate and solar water heating collectors on the roof, and a wind turbine. The system is in fact connected to the grid, which means that when they produce more energy than they can use or store, it goes back to the grid -- and on a very bleak, windless day, if they get down below what they need, they can take it from the grid. The result is an energy neutral home. It's also built to passive solar standards, from strawbale, and has radiant floor heating, as well -- so, the sustainability is built-in from the get-go, not retrofit, which does make it more efficient than retrofitting a drafty north-facing house surrounded by tall apartment buildings, granted. However, there's currently a move to create an incentive by which homes in Ontario that produce and send more energy to the grid than they take back can actually get paid for that extra energy by their local hydro provider. Clearly the climate's not that bad, if a substantial number of homes create more energy than they need, here. :)

For my house in Toronto, at current prices, it will cost no more to replace our gas water heater, when the time comes, with a solar-based option -- house has a sloping roof, faces south, and gets plenty of passive solar as it is -- and we'd do just fine (based on an energy-conscious family of 3's hot water needs). Considering the energy it takes to produce a conventional gas water heater versus what it takes to produce a solar-reliant and efficient heating system, but that the latter has the benefit of not then relying on non-renewable resources to provide the bulk of a home's hot water needs, frankly, the advantage is clearly in favour of the latter.

It seems disingenuous to bring up the energy costs of production, and mining of materials, as a disadvantage to renewable energy products -- as if that's not a disadvantage (moreso, long-term) to products that rely on non-renewable sources, as well. We choose to live in this climate, therefore, we need to heat our environments for a certain portion of the year. How we choose to do that is up to us; given the options, and given that there will always be some energy cost to producing the means to create that heat, why not (when possible) choose the methods that, in the long-term, have less impact on the environment (and our wallets)? :)

From:

pyat.livejournal.com

anidada knows the score, when it comes to housing of this kind!

From:

And I would want her to build a house for me. That's not the same as looking at the big picture for energy usage in Ontario (and I'm only saying Ontario because I don't know enough about the rest of Canada, but I think a lot of it still probably applies).

From:

OK, I'm going to address 2, because the data out there by say Environment Canada and people who make these technologies and sell them supports this.

Having some wind and solar is good. However, what you're describing makes more sense on the individual level than replacing all homes and business with say solar power. And conservation is good too. I'm not saying don't build wind generators or solar generators.

The problem is when you try to look at them as a replacement for nuclear, or coal, or hydro (and with demand increasing over time that would mean that more hydro needs to be built if that's the only option in some areas, and I *really* don't want to see that). Solar and Wind only produce power some of the time. Solar obviously doesn't work at night, and Wind will work irregularly. Since it's not effective to try to store power for lengths of time right now (anything I say here could be blown away by future technology, but it would be very foolish to bet the economy and the environment on technology that we can't be totally sure will be available), these can't totally replace our energy needs, only supplement them.

So yeah, with improved efficiency (and conservation, which is important) along with solar and wind and maybe thermoelectric generators and some other technologies we could reduce our demand on electricity enough to prevent needing to produce new generators for some time, but the Green party wants to phase out nuclear and coal and other fossil fuel plants. I'm all for phasing out the fossil fuel plants, but if we get rid of the nuclear plants we're screwed. There's no way these alternative energy sources will be able to reliably produce the off peak requirements of at least 20 MW of sustained energy (which happens at night), and I'm skeptical about them being able to produce enough for peak hours right now, especially given how we can have a hot, muggy and cloudy day with low winds (and have really cold, overcast days with no winds in the winter). And I don't want the power grid to go out every time those happen.

This is all also about current consumption levels. Even after a massive conservation program energy requirements will rise over time, unless we stop immigration, and I certainly don't want to see that either.

So yeah, while I like some of what the Green party wants to do, I don't see their phasing out of nuclear to be workable, and I don't like seeing reactionary policies that aren't based on the nuclear technologies we are actually using.

From:

My apologies, I started a new job last week and our house has been hit with a tummy bug, so I'm afraid I can't respond as I'd like, at the moment -- though I've every intention of doing so.

However, I saw this (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_26726.aspx) and thought it worth posting. The house in question is a fifteen minute walk from where I live. :)

From:

No problem.

I do think that house is cool, and environmentally friendly, and if all houses changed to be like this it would be a very good thing.

I am just saying I don't see how everyone switching to these houses wouldn't mean that we don't still need non-solar and wind power generation.

From:

*nods* I can see that -- particularly when you factor in the potential energy use of fully electric cars. Currently (no pun intended), we don't have the ability to generate the kind of power we'd need if everyone switched from fossil fuel to electric vehicles, and plugged them into the grid (as would be ideal). At least, not to keep up the status quo in terms of amount of vehicle use -- but that's a whole other discussion (including reduction in home energy use, in general).

From: