this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
55 points (89.9% liked)

Canada

7202 readers
332 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada bet heavily on hydro as a means of cleaning up its carbon footprint; it is the third-largest hydroelectricity producer in the world. But with the climate becoming markedly drier in recent years, Canada’s utilities are now investing hundreds of billions of dollars to diversify their grids, in some cases leaning on power plants fueled by gas or coal to meet mushrooming demand.

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It is hard to tell is that article is written to obscure or misrepresent facts accidentally or on purpose.

It says stuff like hydro “normally represents 60%” of the power generation without saying what it is now. It for sure doss not tell you if hydro generates more or less electricity now vs the past.

The closest we get to a fact that illustrates the narrative is that Quebec hydro exports are down 18% in 2023 from 2022. Again, it does not say how much was generated. Obviously there is still enough hydro power available as they are still exporting a lot of it. Does the drop have anything at all to do with caapacity?

It says that BC “imported” almost 20% of its power but does not tell us how much it exported. This tell us absolutely nothing. Why? Because of how BC uses power.

Unlike most other sources, hydro power is easily turned on or off whenever you want. You cannot control when the sun shines or wind blows. Turning coal or nuclear plants on or off is expensive.

Electricity is deregulated in the US which means that prices spike when demand is high ( daytime ) and drop when it is low ( night ). BC generates excess hydro power during the day and sells it to the US grid. At night, when prices drop, BC buys power back from the US grid ( or Alberta ) and lets the reservoirs fill back up. How much BC imports has more to do with market price than anything else.

Saying BC buys 20% of its electricity tells us nothing as a fact on its own.

The article shares important truths but does it in a biased and misleading way. I do not trust the narrative.

The most important truth is likely the mushrooming demand. The world ( not just Canada ) is requiring more and more electricity every year. It is quite likely that existing hydro power in Canada will have to be increasingly used to meet domestic demand and that new sources of electricity will need to be identified.

As a global phenomenon, we are creating much more “green” electricity than we expected to. However that has mostly gone to new demand and older power plants ( like coal ) have not always been decommissioned as planned. As a planet, we are using more fossil fuel than ever despite all the green progress made. That does not mean somehow that green power generation has not worked out or is somehow a failure. It at least we are not building coal plants to meet all the demand. I bet we are still building natural gas plants though. Still better, but still.

The “lakes drying up” story is also real and not just in Canada. I am not really debating that as a backdrop. However, in the absence of actual head to head facts showing otherwise, I call BS that hydro power plants in Canada have had to turn off or that production has materially dropped. Also, places like BC have certainly not been building coal plants and are not going to. If I did not know any better, that article would have left me with a profound misunderstanding of what is actually going on.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The WSJ only knows so much about Canada, and has its own goals and motives.

Grain of salt, kids.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Science says this is very much happening across the world. The ecological impact of hydroelectric power generation is very, very well studied and agrees with the general sentiment of the article.

Fuck WSJ but let's not ignore science out of spite.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

For now, we could just stop selling surplus hydro to the USA and we will still be OK

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yah, Canada is down to 80% of the world's fresh water.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

Just because we have an abundance doesn't mean we should treat it poorly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

Thank GOD! I thought fresh water levels world wide were critically low and one of the single most important issues in the coming decades!

Dodged a bullet this time. Thank you Jesus!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Hi Actions! Have you met Consequences? I guess not, good thing the stocks go brrrr tho.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wait hasn't Canadian hydro been built way before we were concerned with climate change? You know, because hydro power was available and easy to exploit?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, they built shit and then it turned out it actually kills us all. They knew that at the time too, by the way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hydro is terrible for fish, anyway.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I thought fish lived in that shit.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Remember when people on the left were saying that the only climate action is ending capitalism and degrowing and all anyone had to say was "But green growth!" Well that thing we said was going to happen is happening: That they were lying about the "green" and only wanted the "growth" except now it's even worse because that growth isn't going to making people's lives better, it's going to wars and genocides.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I never get over how stupid their arguments are.

"Science says this is bad."
"Oh yeah, well they are just in it for the money!"

Sure, those filthy rich academics dedicating their life to the pursuit of truth and science are such corporate hogs. The global petrochemical industry on the other hand you can trust, because they would never lie or endanger lives for money. They are idealists.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I don't think anyone is actually saying that.