danielito: 2009

Monday, December 14, 2009

Nuclear Energy Consultation Results

Government of Alberta
Results of the Alberta nuclear consultation demonstrating a broad range of views on nuclear power and its potential role in the province were released today by the Alberta government.

Among the key findings of the Alberta nuclear consultation was that most Albertans polled (45%) preferred that nuclear power plants be considered on a case-by-case basis. About one-fifth (19%) said the province should encourage proposals, while about one-quarter (27%) said the province should oppose proposals. Health, environment, and safety factors were identified as the most important issues Albertans expect government to consider.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Wildrose No. 1 in Alberta, poll finds (Calgary Herald, 11 Dec 2009, Page A1)

Wildrose No. 1 in Alberta, poll finds
JASON FEKETE
Calgary Herald
11 Dec 2009

The surging Wildrose Alliance would form the next provincial government if an election were held in Alberta, according to a new poll that pegs the party with a double-digit lead and the dynastic Tories at their lowest popular support in 17 years. An...read more...

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

sustainable energy

Given the recent record profits from companies in the Alberta tarsands, there is no reason they and our Alberta Government can't be investing in renewable energy research. Fortunately, Arab Emirates Princes are putting their money where there mouth is (see below).

They plan for Abu Dhabi's Masdar City to be powered entirely by renewable energy (Masdar is Arabic for 'source'). The United Arab Emirates are using their oil surpluses intelligently - investing in innovative sustainable technologies that'll lead the way for the next century. Meanwhile, in Alberta we're still talking about coal and pumping Carbon Dioxide under ground.

Take this for example - the Alberta Government is putting $2 billion into carbon capture project and asking the Feds to match them, on this 'green' initiative. I'm highly skeptical about it and here's why: given this concept is fairly new, scientists haven't had the time to test and analyze the broad implications. I mean, this could have major geological effects if not done properly. Until major geological events happen, we take it for granted that our technocrats can manage.

I've seen communities in rural Jamaica that have been completely flooded because mining companies displaced major water resources in order to create tailing ponds for their toxic garbage from the mines. They didn't thoroughly conduct their research and now certain communities have innocently found themselves turning into Atlantis.

My understanding is that carbon sequestration serves two major purposes in the Albertan context. First it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - good. Second, when they pump it into the ground, they don't just pump it anywhere - they pump it into existing oil wells to help pump out hard to reach oil. Some scientists argue that once the oil is pumped out, the carbon dioxide comes out with, nullifying the net effect of the carbon capture. That's my concern. It has to be demonstrated first that this kind of this will not happen before Albertans subsidize this 2 billion dollar project.

In the big picture, carbon sequestration is less than green. I mean, it's motivations are two fold - carbon reduction and enhanced oil recovery. Let's get real - anyone can stamp a leaf sticker on a Hummer and call it green. Action speaks louder than words. A-O!

Going back across the pond, I'm very excited to see all the oil surpluses being invested in sustainable energy research and innovation in the Middle East. Didn't think I'd be saying this anytime soon, but way to go United Arab Emirates!

It's not too late for Alberta to still play a role in energy innovation. Instead of focusing the economy around a finite resource that'll eventually run out, major public surpluses and record private sector profits that have been accumulated over the past prosperous years could be invested into research and development and make Alberta known for more than its tarsands. With the talent and resources to make it happen, why wouldn't we? Let's take a page out of the United Arab Emirates play book for a change.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

President Obama's Inaugural Speech

It is so refreshing to have a leader who promotes positive vibes and responsible messages without the put downs of the conventional political discourse.

Here are snippets from his inaugural address. Epic.

"We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works"

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

"this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

"To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy."

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it."

"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

"We will restore science to its rightful place"

"Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."

"this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

"We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age."

To see the videos of the full speech, go to:

(Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEGd75awApM

(Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NWXvgF34hA

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

energy consumption...

it's been a while since updating the blog because of a full and festive holiday season and before that the tying of many loose ends in Jamaica. I'm at home safe and sound not really sure of anything except the present, at least at the moment...

Anyways, here's something to think about - the global IT industry generates as much greenhouse gases as the world's airlines. That's about 2% of the world's greenhouse gases.

From the TIMESONLINE, "Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research. While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g." (to read the whole article: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece)

Computers, the internet and modern communications devices all require electricity. Electricity can be generated a number of ways, but most commonly (at least in Alberta) is generated by coal or natural gas, which are heavy CO2 emitters.

This week, the big 3 auto companies in North America have all been touting their new electric cars, full of touch screen gadgets to maximize convenience. I'm not sold on the idea yet. (http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-batteries13-2009jan13,1,642793.story)

Here's a mouthfull; unless the non-renewable energy (coal, natural gas, etc.) used to generate the electricity required to charge the all important batteries used to operate the cars for a certain distance is less than the amount of energy (gas or even ethanol) that goes into operating a gas guzzler, then it's not worth it. There would be less smog of roadways, which would be nice for pedestrians and bikers; however, that smog would now be transferred over to electricity generating plants. Cleaner cities - yes, but more filthy industrial zones. The net difference for our global environment would ultimately be the same.

If they use less natural resources in the big picture, then that's real progress. I haven't heard that info in the papers yet though, so if anyone comes across it, send it over!
d.

danielito