Results: The 2030 target for emissions in Canada is 40% to 45% below the 2005 level. This goal is from the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, an ambitious and achievable road map with a sector-by-sector path. 2030 might be too ambitious however.
Published on 11/23/2023
There is no downside to cleaner air, non polluting and renewable energy generation, increased recycling, and less waste of all kinds. There are enough reasons to do this voluntarily yet governments set fixed deadlines regardless of public acceptance. When politicians set an artificial deadline, control of costs is the first casualty. Technology is rushed to market. The technology doesn't always work. And those who were the first to buy it (using government incentives) are left with debt and the debris. When these products fail to deliver, demand can plummet and the funds to continue development can disappear. Here are some examples.
QUESTIONS
GO to COMMENTS
Comments
1.
1.
I installed solar panels on my house in 1986. The photoelectric type of panel had yet to be sufficiently developed. The ones I had used solar energy to heat a glycol mixture that passed through a heating coil to produce hot water. A tiny pump to circulate the mixture was the only moving part. I used a government grant to pay for most of it and broke even in less than 4 years. Yet when it came time to sell my house the solar panels were a liability. Almost 40 years later has anything changed?
I would find buying a home with solar panels on the roof to be quite desirable.
21%
431 votes
I would not want to pay the extra price to buy a house with solar panels already installed.
17%
363 votes
Many people added solar panels to take advantage of government incentives. This attracted many fly by night companies who may not have known what they were doing.
15%
307 votes
I would worry about buying a house with solar panels because they may need future maintenance not covered by warranty.
20%
417 votes
The solar panel technology keeps improving. I wouldn't want to buy a house and be stuck with old technology.
18%
372 votes
If the solar panels produce more power than I need, the extra power can either be stored in expensive batteries or fed into the power grid with potentially restrictive penalties for excess power. Both restrict how much advantage I can take of solar power. I don't want the hassle.
8%
176 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
24 votes
Not Applicable
42%
879 votes
- Not sure and the batteries are expensive.
- Crap
- That would be great!
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.29% | 6 | |
| Too many trees around I'm not willing to cut down | 0.05% | 1 |
| all the above | 0.05% | 1 |
| Solar panels may be desirable but I would look into the technology quite a bit a possible upkeep or upgrade costs | 0.05% | 1 |
| All of the above 6 points have some credibility | 0.05% | 1 |
| I would use what I needed and sell the extra energy if the house was what I liked. | 0.05% | 1 |
| What is the possible Safety problems that these batteries can cause a Fire. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Sometimes the solar panels can damage the roof. | 0.05% | 1 |
| We looked at a house for sale a few years, that was completely off grid and the owners said that for a few months in winter the solar panels were useless due to all the snow and ice. | 0.05% | 1 |
| A total nightmare if you ever have a fire in the building! | 0.05% | 1 |
| All of these would be necessary when considering buying such a house. | 0.05% | 1 |
| I would need to investigate pros and cons more in depth before deciding. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Always have to maintenance (clean debris likr leaves, snow or soot) from the panels. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Not allowed by our condo corporation to do this. | 0.05% | 1 |
| LIES.....solar panel are big polution! | 0.05% | 1 |
| I'd take them if they were there, but wouldn't install my own. If they broke down, I'd just remove them. But until then, I'd take the free energy. | 0.05% | 1 |
| my house is in the woods/shade | 0.05% | 1 |
| Scam | 0.05% | 1 |
| Live in an apartment, not my choice. | 0.05% | 1 |
2.
2.
Where I live the land is flat and often windy. Wind power would seem ideal there and there are many huge towers already erected with more and bigger ones to follow. There are however significant negatives associated with wind power (in its current format). Which of them "give you pause"?
The occasional glimpse of one of these wind towers as you drive along is interesting but seeing them on every horizon, every view of the ocean, every mountain valley and open field is taking away our enjoyment of mother nature and the great outdoors.
26%
547 votes
Some of these towers are so huge, the cost of manufacture, transportation (by vehicles that are fossil fuelled) and installation cannot be cost justified without government (taxpayer) incentives.
26%
555 votes
Some of these towers are on the flight paths of migratory birds and are causing an unacceptable loss of wildlife.
30%
633 votes
The typical life span of a wind turbine is 20 years, with routine maintenance required every six months. The net gain from wind power might not be worth the cost(s).
27%
563 votes
Siemens Energy, one of the world's biggest makers of wind turbines, is seeking government help to guarantee contracts because of its huge and imprudent expansion of its wind turbine manufacturing The company is $billions in debt because of costly repairs to malfunctioning wind turbines. Maybe they should have made them smaller?
16%
343 votes
Having many more but much smaller wind turbines seems a much better idea. It never made sense to build them so huge to begin with.
29%
610 votes
People who now have these huge towers near where they life report a variety of medical conditions caused by the light reflecting on the fan blades, the ultra low pitched hum from the blades and the blockage of light because of their sheer size. This could/should have been foreseen?
34%
714 votes
- NO
- Not where I live.
- NO
3.
3.
Depending on how one defines "clean" energy, there are several other sources of power that should be considered. Which of these would you support.
Coal fired power generation provided emissions are "scrubbed" to remove pollutants, carbon is captured and even the steam produced is used for heating (such as in a greenhouse adjacent to the power plant). In addition the area that is mined for coal must be reclaimed and returned to nature afterwards.
15%
307 votes
Natural gas or other fossil fuels on the same basis as #1 above but with expansion of pipeline grids.
23%
493 votes
Hydro power on a large scale has almost reached its limit. There is still scope for many smaller dams, subject to environmental review.
22%
468 votes
Nuclear fission plants are considered by some to be clean energy. The radioactive fuel rods, are just too polluting in the long term to ever be considered "clean." (In my opinion) Comments?
15%
319 votes
Tidal generation, geothermal power generation, molten salt generation, bio waste power generation are other alternatives. Do you have comments about any of these?
18%
374 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
19 votes
Not Applicable
40%
842 votes
Hydrocarbons can be split into hydrogen (and used as a clean fuel) and carbon (has too many uses to list here).
17%
349 votes
- Nebular fission
- basic sun power if we learn how to harness it
- Cold fusion.
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.39% | 9 | |
| Safer and more efficient Nuclear Power Plants--fission vs fusion | 0.04% | 1 |
| Again I would need to study these more in depth to come up with a good answer. | 0.04% | 1 |
| neutrino boxes are already up in some locations | 0.04% | 1 |
| Solar | 0.04% | 1 |
| biofuel..using food scrap and/or animal poop | 0.04% | 1 |
| turkey | 0.04% | 1 |
| None | 0.04% | 1 |
| not sure | 0.04% | 1 |
| Small Nuclear | 0.04% | 1 |
| No, nuclear is NOT a clean energy. Half life of its toxic waste is thousands of years | 0.04% | 1 |
4.
4.
Government involvement in the clean energy field has had more negative than positive outcomes so far because it tends to favour some aspects of the marketplace to the detriment of other segments. Innovation can also be stifled. Meanwhile the profit motivated free enterprise system is working on the following innovations. Which of the following would you like to see developed further.
Compact wind turbines one could have in the back yard that require almost no wind at all to generate power. These turbines could be assembled by the homeowner and could look like a piece of art (a large mobile). These could outperform roof solar panels at a fraction of the cost of manufacture and installation.
30%
631 votes
Particularly effective in dry climates, a "windmill" shaped array with a wire mesh picks up static electricity and converts it into household voltage with no moving parts and no maintenance.
20%
412 votes
Fusion power - Bill Gates and other entrepreneurs are working to develop this source much sooner than years of government handouts have done. Fusion power is the only nuclear energy we should be expanding. It produces no harmful and long lasting radiation and is virtually limitless. Pundits raised the expectation that the power generated would be free. How naive.
20%
411 votes
There are several perpetual motion machines that could drive small turbines to generate power 24/7 (check them out on YouTube). The makers of these devices are written off as geeks but some of these devices were used by Azteks to transport water up mountains to grow crops. We shouldn't be ignoring them.
16%
346 votes
There are many things we can do to lower our demand for energy. For example, researchers have developed a white paint that reflects 98 percent of sunlight. If painted on a roof it can reduce the air conditioning needs of a building by up to 40 percent.
22%
472 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
14 votes
Not Applicable
43%
899 votes
- yes
- They should get out of the way of people who want to offer or use alternative power. Anything the government touches turns to crap and ends up costing the middle and poor classes while the rich get richer with whatever it is.
- Yes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.26% | 6 | |
| unsure | 0.04% | 1 |
| Leave it the way it was, green energy is a scam | 0.04% | 1 |
| neutrinos already developed. | 0.04% | 1 |
| Wow, this is such a knowledgeable and up to date topic. Thanks for all your research. I am not ready to give my opinion on these. | 0.04% | 1 |
| Go back, I jus told you that ninnie! | 0.04% | 1 |
| stuffing | 0.04% | 1 |
| We should work towards decreasing the human overpopulation, such as encouraging adoption and discouraging procreation. | 0.04% | 1 |
| Municipal Biomass. Sewage producing methane. | 0.04% | 1 |
COMMENTS