prince edward county and wind turbines

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:40 pm

I am confused why you think they will not be decommissioned as the article you posted is the same one I read that says they will be done by 2022... Even the part of the article you cut and paste says they will be shuttered by 2022

We both agree that it was a bad idea...

The only thing we disagree on is that wind energy is a good compliment for Ontario's energy needs. I have provided good evidence and articles that show that they are.

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

"Following decades of protests against nuclear power, the government of social democrats and the Green Party in 2002 agreed with the big utilities to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations in Germany to 32 years so that the last one would be closed by 2022. In 2010, a new government under chancellor Angela Merkel reversed this legislation, extending the operating time of nuclear plants for up to 14 more years"

It states the last one would b closed by 2022, BUT in 2010 the new government reversed it and added another 14 years to the 2022 deadline.

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

EvesR wrote:

I am confused why you think they will not be decommissioned as the article you posted is the same one I read that says they will be done by 2022... Even the part of the article you cut and paste says they will be shuttered by 2022

We both agree that it was a bad idea...

The only thing we disagree on is that wind energy is a good compliment for Ontario's energy needs. I have provided good evidence and articles that show that they are.

You may think it's a "Good Compliment" but the fact of the matter is we do not need the power it creates. Speaking on a provincial level we do not need to continually waste billions on these wind farms now as we are indebted to the nuc plants with over 100 billion in upgrades over 15 years. We are salting off hydro now as it is. Why do we need to keep making more?????? In 2013 Bruce power was paid million upon millions of dollars to not run there units!!!!!!!!!! All the while we are spending millions and millions on un-reliable unesescary wind turbines that our electricity grid does not even require!

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:59 pm

Let's break this down into a timeline of events:

2002- shutdown of nuclear plants will be completed by 2022

2010- new government extends nuclear plant operations for 14 years

2011- In 2011 under the impression of the Fukushima accident, parliament voted by an 80-percent majority to shut down all Germany’s nuclear reactors by 2022 and Germany had its nuclear phase-out back.

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:01 pm

Sounds like a case could be made that we are wasting $100 billion on nuclear? Why do you keep thinking I am against nuclear? I say phase out gas with wind, we cannot run the province on nuclear, have you read any of my links?

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

pickerel killer wrote:

"Fol

It states the last one would b closed by 2022, BUT in 2010 the new government reversed it and added another 14 years to the 2022 deadline.

That would bring deadline to b NPP free by 2034

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:10 pm

OH DEAR GOD! They changed their minds in 2011 so they are still shuttering by 2022 nullifying the 2010 agreement to extend 14 years! You wrote this in your post earlier! I don't know how else to explain this any differently

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:38 pm

EvesR wrote:

Sounds like a case could be made that we are wasting $100 billion on nuclear? Why do you keep thinking I am against nuclear? I say phase out gas with wind, we cannot run the province on nuclear, have you read any of my links?

And as every wind nazi fails to recognize, or conveniently fails to remember, you cannot phase out gas with wind. Wind (and solar) are not reliable enough (or efficient enough for that matter) to meet the every day, every hour demand for power and MUST, MUST be backed up by a gas powered generating station. Why gas? Because folks are out of their mind over coal, even though it is the most improved energy technology for the last 100 years, and suggesting coal would be political suicide, and nuclear cannot be operated as an on again off again source.

And that, my friend, is THE main reason that the current batch of renewables fail on the efficiency calculation. i.e. why invest in wind/solar AND gas powered when you are going to have to build a gas powered plant in either scenario? Building the additional generation after gas (i.e wind and solar) Makes ZERO economic and resource allocation sense. THAT is why those sources are so resource heavy.

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:42 pm

I afraid this is why it is difficult to debate someone with anger towards the opposing side, they fail to read the evidence that has been placed before them (See the links I have added) that says the absolute opposite to what you have posted. But hey, why not take the word of "some guy" on the internet with no data to back up his point over peer reviewed data

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:44 pm

Here is how good "clean" coal is.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/ ... jhuis-text
Also read my posts on why intermittent wind power mixed with hydro and nuclear is a great option

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:51 pm

EvesR wrote:

I afraid this is why it is difficult to debate someone with anger towards the opposing side, they fail to read the evidence that has been placed before them (See the links I have added) that says the absolute opposite to what you have posted. But hey, why not take the word of "some guy" on the internet with no data to back up his point over peer reviewed data

I see.. then the new gas powered generation being built in Napanee, that's not a thing then? Perhaps when you are skipping over the "truth" to get to your facts you should reflect on what you are promoting.

Again, ad hominems are not arguments. "Some guy on the internet" is not an argument.

And attacking another person's sources as unreliable, and then appealing to National Geographic as an objective authority is quite rich of you. How about looking into the information provided by those that are improving the technologies, not those who are blinded by ideology.

And your source on wind energy capture, already a dead option because of the resource and waste associated with battery storage. About 2 pages back we covered this.

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:13 pm

Umm, you don't seem to understand what ad hominem actually is, I was not attacking you as a person but rather how you debate by not providing any citations to back up your claim which is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I said you were wrong because your mother is a prostitute, then you would be correct.
I am not attacking your sources as you would have to provide a source in order for me to attack it. If you don't like the post because of where it comes from then provide your own counter evidence, and no I will not just take your word for it. Please read the other links have have posted that prove your arguments to be false.
I'm not quite sure where you were trying to go with the "I guess the gas plant in Napanee is not a thing?" I know it is a thing, I see it, and we should be phasing those out but it is still a thing.

Here are some more for you on "clean coal" since you don't like the other one
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coalnotclean.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... about-coal
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26563500

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:17 pm

"And your source on wind energy capture, already a dead option because of the resource and waste associated with battery storage. About 2 pages back we covered this."

Actually you did not read my source on this as it does not even mention battery backup but hydrogen production, but you have to read my sources first to know what I said

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

EvesR how many wind turbines do u think it would take to replace our existing gas fired Plants. Maybe our government should have consulted with you before spending billions of dollars??? So they could have spent a 100 billion on turbines and them smeared right across the Ontario landscape. China 1.35 billion and Germany 80 million, our gas fired plants are nothing but a fart in the wind compared to the other countries.

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:52 pm

Well at least you let go of the Germany thing... Bay steps
It is like you don't read anything I have posted. Why would you want the government to listen to me on what is best for our energy needs, we are both just some guys on the internet and not experts. They should listen to unbiased experts on the subject as I do and as I presented to you. I implore you to do the same

HOME	Bait&Tackle	Bed&Breakfast	Boat Rentals	Campgrounds	Contact Us
Cottage Rentals	Guides/Fishing Charters	Hotels/Motels	Hunting Supplies	Ice Huts/Ice Guides	Marinas
Outfitters	QUINTE FISHING SERIES	Resorts	Tourism	Trailer Parks	Launches

Quinte Fishing

prince edward county and wind turbines

Who is online