🇨🇦 tunetardis

  • 2 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle





  • I worry about what this legislation could mean for medium-sized cities like where I live that are only now starting to put in bike infrastructure. It is underutilized at this point, but that’s because it is still incomplete.

    You have, for example, a wonderful off-road trail that is 90% complete connecting the suburbs to downtown, but there is one section where you have to cross a bridge with no bike lanes or anything. Until that part gets done, few people will use the rest of it. But if they decide to take a lane away from cars on the bridge, the province could argue that no one uses the trail in the first place and shoot it down. Uuugh!

    I was recently in Montreal and omg it’s cycling heaven! Bikes outnumber cars in many places and vehicle congestion seems less in spite of this. Also, drivers seem more cautious in general in the downtown core, even on roads where there are no cycle tracks. It’s a bit like the college campus effect I guess? When you have a high density of non-automotive road usage, the cars tend to slow down and be more patient. They’re moving slower but there is still a steady flow of traffic. Not a lot of gridlock.


  • But the mining, milling, and production of nuclear fuel, as well as the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants, emit greenhouse gases at levels ranging from 10 to 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of power — lower than fossil fuels but higher than wind and hydroelectricity (and roughly on par with solar).

    That’s interesting. The article they link gives a bit more detail:

    These energy intensities translate into greenhouse gas intensities for LWR and HWR of between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g CO2-e/kWhel.

    While these greenhouse gases are expectedly lower than those of fossil technologies (typically 600–1200 g CO2-e/kWhel), they are higher than reported figures for wind turbines and hydroelectricity (around 15–25 g CO2-e/kWhel) and in the order of, or slightly lower than, solar photovoltaic or solar thermal power (around 90 g CO2-e/kWhel).

    The wide range for nuclear apparently comes from difficulties in estimating the carbon footprint of mining/processing the uranium, but that nuclear is sort of in the middle of the pack in carbon footprint relative to renewables in spite of the fueling costs is good to know.

    I suppose these sort of numbers may change dramatically in years to come. Take solar. A lot of focus seems to be on the efficiency of panels, which would almost certainly lower the carbon cost per unit of energy as it improves, but a breakthrough in panel longevity would also do that in an amortized emissions sort of way.









  • I posted this because it gave me a hint as to why conservative propaganda has shifted in recent years. It’s mostly personal attacks on the man at the top now. “F#ck Trudeau” and all that.

    While this might make some sense in the US where the presidency is an institution unto itself, it makes a lot less sense in Canada where we have a parliamentary system in which running the country is a group effort by the dominant political party.

    And Trudeau is not even a power-trippy type of leader. He’s always been more of a delegator. So while I believe there is plenty of reason to be critical of the current federal government, pinning it all on the prime minister just seems weird and off. Like something a foreign influence campaign would be trying to do, in other words.