Criton

Cpal, thought you might like to know how much progress Canada is making in keeping up with its Kyoto Treaty obligations. Under Kyoto, Canada agreed to cut its CO2 emission by 6 percent from 1990 levels. In 1990, Canada's CO2 emissions totaled 430.2 million metric tons. It's Kyoto target is 404.4 million metric tons. In 2004 Canadian C02 emissions totaled 560.3 million metric tons, 30.2 percent ABOVE 1990 levels and 38.6 percent above the Kyoto commitment. What gives?

Incidentially, between 1990 and 2004, U.S. C02 emission are up, but only 22 percent, not 30.2. Just so you know, the U.S. population over this period increased by 15 percent, while Canada's grew by only 13.

Did Canada sign on to Kyoto just so all of you liberals would feel good about yourselves while you criticize the U.S? Or are you just generating that much more hot air?

Cheers!

cpal_747

I'm not sure why you care about Kyoto accord, since the top US Scientists don't believe in what it is trying to accomplish. Since we have till 2012 to meet these goals, there is still time to cut the emissions, but it is harder when the US keeps trying to build power plants on the border, like they are trying to do in Washington state. Nothing like letting the pollution leech over to your neighbour.

I did notice that you made no mention of the massive forest management and reforestation programs that are carried out in BC and where they may offset their members emissions by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by so-called "carbon sinks".

Thank you for your increased vigilance on the Canadian front. It is nice to see that you guys rebuilt that purty white house after we had a little bbq there.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

JOHN JOHNSON

Very easy!!!!!! Easy solution!!!!!

Install a huge power fan to redirect U.S. plants' emission back to the U.S.

Plant bunches of CO2 loving trees.

Raise gas taxes!

Gas Guzzler taxes on all vechiles that averages 15 MPG below in city.

Give away free breathing mints for every citizens!

Redesign roof by convert something new..... CO2 loving trees on the roof. What a News!

Mandatory Solar or windmills system install on every houses.

Encourage your children to blow with their windmill toys and generate/recharge batteries for their other battery-toys devices!

Problem solved!!!

Patting on your shoulder/back!

Attaboys!

__________________
Who should I consider?
Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain?
Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

Criton

Gee, CPAL, you confuse me again. Why would it be harder for Canada to cut ITS CO2 emissions if the U.S. builds more power plants on its side of the border? I think it would help you. Since we won't need to import as much Canadian power, you won't have to run your power plants as much. Canada signed on to Kyoto knowing that the U.S. wouldn't. You committed to comply with its terms anyway but now it appears you can't. Not only will you fail, but your CO2 emissions are growing at a faster rate than the evil U.S. Isn't that amazing!

I didn't mention the "massive" forest management initiatives because everybody but you, apparently, realizes that this initiative basically is just window dressing.

Yeah, you've got time to comply......which is probably why half of the team working on developing Canada's Kyoto implementation plan recently resigned. You must be half way to meeting your goals.....

N2272V

You have me laughing Criton. I love how you can catch a liberal in their on conundrum. Then watch as they try to find a way to blame the big bad ole USA for their problems. Funny how the FACTS always seem to get in the way.

Here's hoping he never gives up. It's entertaining!

Carry on!

cpal_747

So now you are projecting the thoughts of Kyoto signers, that Canada signed because they knew that the US wouldn't. How do you come across this information, were you in the boardroom? I'm curious to why you care about Kyoto, since the US position is that it is a pointless exercise. I'm also curious as to why you think no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since the early 70's. Or do you think that Jimbo deserves to have rolling brown-outs every once in a while, just to keep him on his toes.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Criton

Are you saying that Canada signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty believing that the U.S. would do the same? Wow. It doesn't say much about your politicians, now does it? Actually, you are wrong. The U.S. has built several nuclear plants since the early 1970s. One that I'm familiar with is the South Texas Nuclear project, but I'm sure there are others as well. No nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the late 1970s and early 1980s because they become too expensive relative to alternate technologies. That, however, is likely to change.

Addendum: It seems that I've been too willing to trust your "facts" in fact quite a few U.S. nuclear plants have been built since the late 1970s. See below.

Criton

Cpal, since I wouldn't want you to be as ignorant as us Americans, I thought I'd pass along the following information on the U.S. nuclear power industry. Hope this helps.

Plant Initial Year of Operation
Sequoyah 1 1980
Sequoyah 2 1981
Harris 1 1987
McGuire 1 1981
McGuire 2 1983
South Texas 1 1988
South Texas 2 1989
North Anna 1 1978
North Anna 2 1980
WN&P 1 & 2 1984
Watts Bar1 1994
Watts Bar 2 1996
Commanche Peak 1993
River Bend 1 1985
Waterford 1985
Millstone 3 1986
Vogtle 1 1987
Vogtle 2 1989
Braidwood 1 1988
Braidwood 2 1989
Byron 1 1985
Byron 2 1987
Clinton 1 1987
Wolf Creek 1985
Fermi 2 1985
Callaway 1984
Seabrook 1990
Hope Creek 1986
Nine Mile Point 2 1987

cpal_747

Watts Barr seems to be the youngest, I wonder when they started construction on that one? Could it be 23 years before it was first operable? Would that make it around the 70's when they decided to build it? I'm sure the people of the TVA are happy to have it there too. Nothing like borrowing almost 30 billion dollars to get something done!

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Moomins

B.C. has a Provincial debt of 35.8 billion dollars that they most likely used to get things done. How would this be different from borrowing money to construct nuclear plants?

Here's the link if you want to confirm that debt total. Have a great day.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/channe...AV_ID_province

Criton

Keep twisting and grasping, buddy. One of these days, something you pull out of your arse actually may stick! How's Canada's nuclear program going these days, hmmmm?

cpal_747

Facts seem to have that affect on you? Are you saying that Watts Barr didn't start construction in the 70's? Or that the budget money is way off base? Our Nuclear program is going just fine, thank you for asking.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

cpal_747

Debt is different than deficit. Since we're paying down the debt, we're not adding on to it! Also the 35 billion figure would be for running the whole province, not just one project.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Moomins

Correct. Debt is different than deficit.

Debt is the total owed. Decifit is when you are spending more than you take in, thereby adding to the debt.

Criton's list mentions 30 different nuclear projects, not the one that you allude to in the above quote.

P.S. - I also realize that your 30 billion is something you pulled out of the air. My point is that governments at all levels borrow cash for just these types of projects.

Criton

Let me see if I can summarize your facts. You stated as fact that the U.S. hasn't built a single nuclear plant since the early 1970s. Given the large number of plants that were completed in the 1980s and 1990s, this fact was clearly wrong. Now you're trying to cover your *** by claiming that construction on the Watts Barr plant BEGAN in the early 1970s. That's something quite different from your first "fact" isn't it?

Is your claim that Canada's nuclear program is "going just fine" another one of your "facts"? You might want to check on what happened to Ontario Hydro's nuclear program in 1998. They still haven't dug themselves out of that hole. They've spent more fixing problems there than TVA spent building the Watts Bar units.

cpal_747

Do you not see Watts Bar in his list? In order to construct that Nuclear power plant they had to borrow 28 billion dollars, from the original 30 that the government had promised them.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Criton

It must be painful pulling all of this stuff our of your ***, CPAL. As of September 30, 2004, TVA's TOTAL debt consisted of $21.3 billion in long-term obligations and $1.9 billion in short-term obligations. The debt includes not only the construction of the Watt Bar unit but also the sequoyah generating units and the decomissioning costs of the Browns Ferry nuclear unit. It also includes construction costs associated with about a dozen large base-loaded coal-fired units as well as environmental bonds to pay for the installation of FGD scrubbers and SCRs on most of these coal-fired units. The bonds also include funds used to finance major flood control projects on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Now where did you get the figure of $30 billion for the Watts Bar nuclear unit? I'd wear gloves before handling it again if I were you.

Moomins

OK. Is there a point here?

Like I said before. If governments didn't borrow money to get these projects done or at the very least, provide sort form of financial support, tax credits, subsidies, bonds, etc, they wouldn't happen.

Projects that will take a long time (IE - ten years) to complete are more prone to cost overruns, even if an inflation factor is included.

What I don't understand is if you are so "pro" Kyoto, why would you have any problem with government's borrowing money to construct nuclear plants? After all, they would reduce the amount of "greenhouse gas" emitted, wouldn't they?

N2272V

Your okay dude. Welcome to the debate.

cpal_747

Re-read post 16 again and see if you can find the point.

Here's a hint, I was pointing out something fairly obvious to you.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Criton

Re-read post 17 again and you'll see that your "point" is based on an imaginary number you've pulled from thin air.

cpal_747

It was from some NRC web page talking about the Watts Barr site. Let's see you start posting sources for your info or else I will just assume that they are imaginary numbers you've pulled from thin air.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Criton

Sorry, CPAL, but your citation doesn't exist. If it did, I'm sure you'd be more than happy provide a link to the page.

Nevertheless, I think I understand how you have become confused. TVA has a federally imposed debt ceiling of $30 billion. This isn't money lent or promised to TVA by the federal government, but the maximum that TVA is allowed to borrow from the private debt market for everything, including the cost to build the Watts Barr plant and all of its other capital investment activities.

By the way, if you want to check on TVA's debt status, go to www.tva.gov Check the page for investors, where you'll find the agency's 2004 Annual Report. I'm sure you'll find it quite enlightening.

Also, have you figured out yet what happened to Ontario Hydro's nuclear program in 1998. While your web "searches" seem to be very effective at turning up imaginary data, you seem to have some real difficulty coming up with hard information. You may want to check your web browser for possible bugs.