According to The Times political editor, Philip Webster, a new generation of nuclear power stations will be built to supply unlimited amounts of electricity to Britian's national grid.
"The Cabinet will give the go-ahead for the new building programme today [Tuesday 8th January] and John Hutton, the Business Secretary, will announce the decision on Thursday.
"He will pave the way for the nuclear industry to play a much bigger part in meeting Britain's energy needs by making plain that there will be no limit on the amount of electricity it can supply to the grid."
Mark - sure then perhaps you would like to read something on the oil sands - it is a good resource and you will see what the energy requirements really are. The EROI of oil sands is less than 3:1.
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/pprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.pdf
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Canadian_Oil_Sands_Development_An_Economic_Boon_But_Leaves_A_Mess_999.html
http://www.eub.ca/docs/products/STs/st98-2006.pdf
As to the NAFTA stuff:
http://moneymanager.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html
"Almost all Canada's exports of oil and oil products go to the United States. In 2004, these exports totalled 70 per cent of Canada's production, up from 60 per cent in 1998 and 50 per cent in 1990.
NAFTA limits the extent to which the Canadian government can act to reduce exports to the United States. Article 605(a) of NAFTA prohibits measures that would reduce these exports as a share of Canada's production to below "the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month period for which data are available." In effect, NAFTA prevents a reduction in the amount of oil or oil products going to the U.S. -- unless both Canadian production and consumption fall.
This clause of NAFTA could also prevent issuance of a licence to export oil to a third party such as China. Because the U.S. share of 70 per cent of production must be maintained, oil could be sent to China only if (a) Canada's consumption were reduced; (b) Canada's imports were increased or (c) Canada's production were increased by several times the amount to be sent to China (to maintain the 70-per-cent share going to the U.S.)."
It is a bit hard to rebutt the truth.
There are so many inaccuracies in your statements above I frankly don't have the time or interest in rebutting them and what would be the point?
What gets me is just the plain deception of most alarmists when it comes to both the supposed problem and the so called solutions.
A little less hype and a better grasp of the reality should be the order of the day. The fact of the matter is that most of the world's population in the developed or developing world will always be dependent on delivery of electric power via the grid unless someone develops a "Mr. Fusion" someday. That power will have to come from a variety of sources including hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels and yes, renewables! But those renewables have to earn their way and inevitably technology will probably let that happen some day. Until then, however, let's not pretend they are some panacea that are going to immediately save the world from a contrived climate crisis!
Mark - "So I guess that makes you a liar for implying that we can get by just fine without continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuel power."
I like how you can bandy about the liar thing. I have never said anywhere that we have to eliminate all fossil fuels. We can however get them under 30% with renewables so that the CO2 emissions will be low enough to keep us under 2 deg of warming. At this level we have enough fossil fuels to last a considerable time and we never have to resort to nuclear power. Nuclear is an expensive waste of money that leaves a legacy of dangerous waste that you are no accountable for. If you think renewables are subsidised have a look at the subsidies for nuclear power over the years. Start with the Price Anderson Act and go on from there.
"And the petrol thing? We've got hundreds of billions of barrels of oil here in Canada so I don't expect to run into any shortages any time soon."
Assuming that you use all of Canada's natural gas exports, every single cubic meter and diverted it to Alberta you might be able to ramp up the oil sands to 10 million barrels per day. However most of your gas goes to the US and even if you did ramp up the oil sands to this figure you would be obliged under the NAFTA to send this all to the US leaving possibly none for Canada. So what are you going to export the gas or the oil or both. Perhaps you might think about voting to repeal the NAFTA so that you can use some of Canada's resources for yourselves.
"To say otherwise is just being plain dishonest. However, once the technology is there I wouldn't be surprised to see oil prices plummet as the future threat of scarcity built into current pricing disappears and the first world can tell the despots in Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East to stick their barrels of oil where the sun doesn't shine"
You could do that today. Your oil sands are just an expensive method of converting natural gas into liquid fuel, the heavy oil deposits in Venezuela are only a bit better. Why not start today building a V2G electric car network and use the wind resources that Canada is very well endowed with? You do not do it because of people like you that are so afraid of changing one little bit that they ignore the massive environmental damage that their choices make.
I admit that I am still much the same. I drive a car and use electricity and in that I am a hypocrite however at least I am not afraid to change the way I think and I am not afraid to change the way I live. I ride public transport even though it would be easy to drive to work. I do use CFLs and I do unplug electric appliances that are not in use. I do look for the most efficient electrical appliances when I buy them.
Yes I am a hypocrite but I realise that I have a problem and I am trying to change AND keep a family at the same time. We will in 5 or 10 years be off the grid and hopefully driving an electric car that we charge from our grid. As I said assuming that I am still posting here then I will keep you posted. The point is that I started late and therefore it is so much more difficult to change. I might through my actions encourage younger people that can start early when it is easier.
Or I could be like you and just bring on more of the status-quo where it is comfortable and easy. Just don't mention the war. (Fawlty Towers quote not the Iraq war)
"This is exactly what I am working toward so I will keep you posted."
Well you're not there yet then are you? Oh, and getting by on 2 40 watt equivalent CFLs and a hemp loincloth doesn't count either. This stuff needs to work for those of us that live in the real world! So I guess that makes you a liar for implying that we can get by just fine without continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuel power.
"And if you need any help when you are in a load shedding blackout and petrol is $5.00 per litre and rationed please don't hesitate to bugger off.
The only reason I'll ever have to face a load shedding blackout is because Greenie hysteria causes my spineless provincial government to mess around with the tried and proven ways of generating power for the masses. They campaigned on shutting down our limited coal plants here in Ontario and they've already had to back off on the associated target date once - I certainly expect them to have to do it again. Meanwhile they are building a number of wind farms and pathetically even a solar farm in our northern clime. Naturally these are totally uneconomic and the power utility is being forced by the government to pay 2x the going rate for the wind generated electricity and 8x for the solar generated electricity. What a farce. And this doesn't even account for the fact that these so called renewables would be completely untenable except for the fact they piggyback on the existing grid to cover for them when they aren't able to produce to their rated level of power.
And the petrol thing? We've got hundreds of billions of barrels of oil here in Canada so I don't expect to run into any shortages any time soon.
Again, I have nothing against electric cars. I think they are a great idea but the technology and associated economics are not yet ready for prime time. Maybe 5-10 years if we're lucky. To say otherwise is just being plain dishonest. However, once the technology is there I wouldn't be surprised to see oil prices plummet as the future threat of scarcity built into current pricing disappears and the first world can tell the despots in Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East to stick their barrels of oil where the sun doesn't shine! This will make the economic equation around the viability of such electric cars a bit more problematic.
Mark - "So Ender, let us know when you have your solar panels installed, you're driving one of these fancy new electric cars and you're off-grid and off-refinery, will ya? Until then, you're either a liar or a hypocrite, as most climater alarmists tend to be."
So down to the final argument when there is nothing left. This is exactly what I am working toward so I will keep you posted.
And if you need any help when you are in a load shedding blackout and petrol is $5.00 per litre and rationed please don't hesitate to bugger off. I will hopefully be fine.
Jonathan - "Now if there were say six of us in a group with vastly different equipment but the same capacity, do you think we could have managed to connect this hotch-potch of stuff into a working grid?"
Since 1989 technology has improved a bit. The Sunny Boy range of inverters will do this for you as you can connect all the hotch potch on the AC side and the inverters talk to each other to control the battery charging.
http://www2.sma.de/en/solar-technology/products/solar-inverter/sunny-boy/index.html
However again you are talking about First World power requirements. Where power lines don't exist or are stolen five minutes after they are installed , village based solar/wind makes far more sense that foisting a huge nuclear plant on a place where it will only benefit the elite.
So Ender, let us know when you have your solar panels installed, you're driving one of these fancy new electric cars and you're off-grid and off-refinery, will ya? Until then, you're either a liar or a hypocrite, as most climater alarmists tend to be.
I forgot to mention that if many people would buy some of this stuff individually, it would make more sense to buy bigger communally, and then we would be where we are today! A central power plant (whatever flavor)!
Ender,
"They are scaleable from village to city in a way coal and nuclear are not."
When we lived on the farm near Trentham in Vic. the mains power would have cost over $15000, and that was in 1989.
I set us up with wind (slavonius and others), a (then VERY expensive) solar, two 200w panels, and a small Chineese manufactured steam engine driving a 7.5 KVA alternator, and a shed full of ex. Telecom deep cycle batteries, connected up to provide 220 volts for my inverter. (220 volts so I didn't have to deal with huge currents. I used high voltage thyristors in the inverter.
The whole setup cost me about $10K and it was only possible at the price because I am in the engineering game.
Now if there were say six of us in a group with vastly different equipment but the same capacity, do you think we could have managed to connect this hotch-potch of stuff into a working grid?
The only realistically (cost-wise) scalable part of my equipment at the time was the (coal or wood) fueled little steam engine.
I am not fond of the chineese rubbish we import now, but my hat off for that little donkey engine, more than 17 years on, it's still working!!!.
Sadly we now live in Melbourne, I personally didn't mind the inconvenience and the hassle of look after the equipment, it just became part of the daily routine. Even the wife learned to be careful, to note what appliance could be on, when we were on batteries only. But believe me, it's just not PRACTICAL for most people and larger communities.
Jonathan - "All the talk about saving, and doing with less, and managing with a couple of batteries is just wishful thinking. If one believes it himself that is fine he can make it work for himself and like minded groups, but everyday average people are not like that.
Once you have electricity for light, wouldn’t you want it to use it for something else as well? Like grinding flour, pump water, and there goes your two battery idea out the window."
Have you ever heard or imagined the term "starting small"? Renewables are scaleable. You can start with a couple of lights, a battery and a solar panel or wind turbine. As your power needs increase you can add to this power plant in increments and even connect it to others with exactly the same high efficiency as the tiny plant.
This is the beauty of renewables. They are scaleable from village to city in a way coal and nuclear are not.