I Was Worried For a Moment

When I saw Google/Pocket recommending this article on batteries for the grid, I was a bit concerned. It was contrary to what I understood to be the truth, so I read a bit to get a sense if it was new information. It turned out to be 4-2 year old information, and seems to favour fossil fuels and nuclear. It’s safe to discount as FUD, at this point.

“This article was originally published on July 27, 2018, by MIT Technology Review, and is republished here with permission.”

Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.

MIT Technology Review |

• James Temple

It’s simply old information. Obsolete.
A coworker last night sent me this story about batteries as a huge success on the grid.
Yes, a peaker battery isn’t the same as 100% battery, but no one is saying that the entire supply should rely on only batteries.

Battery prices are falling at a pace of 22% per year for the last decade. Imagine what they’ll cost in 2022, in only 2 more years?

Heating Homes

Canada has a huge house heating issue. We burn a lot of fossil gas to heat homes. There are solutions, but we’ll have to implement them faster than the market can provide.

For new neighbourhoods, Borehole Thermal Energy Storage is an obvious solution.

Geothermal heating is another good idea for homes with hot water heat sources already. There’s hot water that helps put Moose Jaw’s spa on the map, but the provincial power utility is foolishly building more fossil gas power generation over the next few years there.

 

Bigger Than It Looks

I kinda feel this should be a bigger story than it has been given time for on our news. The impact on Saskatchewan will be very severe when the ocean is 3 meters higher than it presently is thanks to this glacier not being in the oceans. If we can stop this from happening, it could save the world for hundreds of millions of people.

The
West Antarctic
Ice Sheet
holds enough
ice
to raise
global sea level
by 11 feet.

The Thwaites "doomsday" Glacier
stabilises
the rest of
the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet.

The Thwaites Glacier
seems to be
undergoing
a rapid
and
unstoppable
retreat.https://t.co/ArbWccauOp

— Ben See (@ClimateBen) February 5, 2020

2 meters by 2100 is a best case scenario based on current data. Thwaites glacier could collapse in as little as 10 years, raising sea levels 4 feet. The West Antarctic ice sheet is already at risk from warm water undercutting, but "probably" wont collapse until next century.

— D K (@kln_nurv) May 31, 2019

Scientists continue to warn that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet could collapse within the next 100 years, leading to a sea-level rise of nearly 3 meters and flooding coastlines around the world. https://t.co/6DE6Mqtc3U via @CBSNews

— Jos van Went (@josvanwent) February 2, 2020

#EightYears came early

A couple years ago when the IPCC gave us approximately 12 years to get emissions way down, I started using the hashtag #TwelveYears on stories related to how far we have to go yet now I’ve been using #TenYears, but I’m being too conservative. #EightYears is our presently calculated deadline to have a 50% chance of protecting a survivable planet.

Our odds of limiting warming to 1.5C are vanishingly small barring global-scale negative emissions tech that barely exist today. There are real climate impacts at 1.5C, and even larger impacts at 2 and 2.5C; in fact, the longer we delay the more important rapid mitigation becomes pic.twitter.com/YHSRIYYKLh

— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) December 26, 2019

And make sure they understand that this is for a 50% chance of staying below 1,5°C of average temp rise, and that 50% do not including global aspect of equity, most feedback loops, non-linear tipping points nor additional warming hidden by air pollution. 2/3

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) December 26, 2019

Oil Is The Reason For The Season?

Don’t you dare suggest that oil could be bad, the sensitive folks of Oxbow, SK might get up in arms. They’re having a tough time with work you see, the oil industry that once paid them handsomely to ruin their kid’s environment, now only ruins their kids’ environment without paying them for the privilege.

Here are some comments attacking the teachers who decided to use a green theme for their Christmas concert, and teach kids that some of their parents are deranged Boomers despite not being old enough.

• Lanny Martindale It’s the whole system there brainwashing them to be little Gretas it a joke the whole system!
• 

  Bruce Loppe Well said Mike. And Lanny is right.
• 

  Warren Dalziel More brain washing, poor kids don’t even know the difference
• 

  Darlene Twietmeyer You know that really is too bad it’s Christmas for Pete’s sake wow
  isn’t the whole idea of Christmas well it’s Santa and presents but it’s the whole Nativity thing and the reason for the season and all that
• Aaron Folkerts: “I was disgusted my self . I heard about it but then I saw it. Keep your fucking commy political beliefs to yourself and just do what your paid to. Teach”

Hypocrisy It Isn’t

Notable climate crisis musician and activist Laura Stewart in the Leader Post explaining why climate activists aren’t hypocrites for pressuring governments to take action they cannot personally:
leaderpost com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor-oct-17-2019-climate-change-protesters-arent-the-major-emitters

Climate protesters aren’t hypocrites

Regina’s climate protesters are not hypocrites. They demand government action on problems their personal actions can’t touch.

Critics say, “Pick up litter.” Some protesters do that. Some attempt zero-waste living. But of Saskatchewan’s 76 megatonnes of emissions, the “Waste and Others” sector makes up only three per cent.

Yes, many protesters bike, walk, or bus to the marches. But “Passenger Transportation” produces just six per cent of emissions. And it’s a nine-hour bike ride to the legislature from my home town.

What personal actions could drive down the 34 per cent of emissions from “Oil and Gas” production? During one march, a critic suggested turning off the gas to my house, but that’s consumption — counted in the “Buildings” sector at only four per cent.

How about reducing the 19 per cent of emissions from “Electricity”? Eliminating all residential electricity would cut only about three per cent of overall emissions. And critics complain about protesters’ cell phones.

“Agriculture” produces 22 per cent of emissions — and $13 billion in exports. Many protesters avoid eating meat — another partial solution. But about nine per cent of Saskatchewan’s overall emissions come from crop production, because it releases nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times worse than carbon dioxide.

We need government actions to make high emissions costly, make lowering emissions pay, and make zero emissions an affordable choice. Otherwise, we subsidize our present prosperity at the expense of our children’s future.

The most important personal action you can take to help solve the climate emergency? Talk about it.

Laura Stewart, Regina

This is a subject that I’ve discussed years ago too.

Minister of SaskPower, Duncan, Should Resign

I don’t think I’ve ever called for a Minister to resign before, while on the radio, but Duncan should definitely quit screwing up Saskatchewan, SaskPower, and our environment.

You and I definitely outproduce the Crown utility's renewable solar power production from their own panels. We also produce more #solar power than:@CBCSask @BlueSkyCBC @CityofRegina @SKGov
and @cathmckenna's government buildings in Regina.
They can't catch up now either!

— Saskboy (@saskboy) September 25, 2019