Politics in 2016

[PuckChaser]

It doesn't matter what a change to, the system will be dissected and gamed. Strategic voting games FPTP, and picking an independent as second choice games ranked ballot.

 

[jollyjacktar]

All being said, I have enjoyed Mr. Mulcair doing his lawn dart impression of Oct again. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Progressive voters will never vote Tory, ...

Progressive voters may never vote Tory but NDP voters may.  That is what the British Labour party has run into when their champagne socialists find themselves losing the miners and steelworkers who are heading towards the United Kingdom Independence Party, the British National Party and English Defence League.  Those parties are not composed of Tory supporters, although UKIP draws some strength from the Tories on the EU issue.  Most of the supporters are traditional Labour supporters with whom the party has lost touch.

Kind of like the Roughnecks, Welders and Machinists on the Edmonton floor.  Redeyes more likely than Mimosas.

 

[Altair]

I think what we've seen here is the hijacking of the NDP by the environmental wing. The labor wing just got told to stfu and take it.

The environmental wing doesn't give a damn if all of alberta goes bankrupt if it means no pipelines and a moratorium on new projects.

Then there is the quebec wing that just had their leader kicked unceremoniously to the curb.

The party might be gearing up for a ugly leadership race.

And there is already talk of the alberta provincial ndp to cut all ties with the federal NDP party. Might not be a bad idea, this will sink any chance of Notley getting reelected, if the federal cousins start talking about keeping oil in the ground. If I were her I would be in serious talks with the liberals about a merger.

The "Liberal Democratic Party" or "Democratic Liberal party" or maybe the "New Liberal democratic Party"

Either way, should Notley go to the polls tied to the federal wackos the NDP is going to make the liberal party death in Alberta after PET look like a minor time out.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm going to post this here since it demonstrates the convergence between technology and politics. The proposed gassification/fuel cell system is far more efficient than a straight thermal system (in technical terms, it is not limited by the Carnot cycle), and could be even more efficient by tapping the waste heat to run a bottoming cycle engine (maybe a steam turbine, or maybe a gas turbine using the hot exhaust gasses, much like a turbocharger).

The article "sells" the idea by bowing to the church of global warming, and any serious attempts to develop this will probably have to be marketed like this. Not mentioned is the real benefit; cutting the input costs in half (burn 1/2 the coal for the same amount of energy) is a huge boost in productivity, and increasing productivity is the only way *we* can pay for the expensive welfare state that has been built since the 1960's. Cheap and reliable energy is key to a modern economy (ask Ontario how losing cheap and reliable energy is working out), so any serious politician, economist or interested members of the public should be advocating for and inversting in these sorts of technologies as infrastructure, rather than "green" energy boondoggles or Performing Arts Centres as infrastructure.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/mit-proposes-gasification-fuel-cell.html

MIT proposes gasification fuel cell coal plants to get to 60% efficiency which is double pulverized coal efficiency

Researchers at MIT have come up with a plan to generate electricity from coal with much greater efficiency — possibly reaching as much as twice the fuel-to-electricity efficiency of today’s conventional coal plants. This would mean, all things being equal, a 50 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for a given amount of power produced.

The key is combining into a single system two well-known technologies: coal gasification and fuel cells.
Coal gasification is a way of extracting burnable gaseous fuel from pulverized coal, rather than burning the coal itself. The technique is widely used in chemical processing plants as a way of producing hydrogen gas. Fuel cells produce electricity from a gaseous fuel by passing it through a battery-like system where the fuel reacts electrochemically with oxygen from the air.

The attraction of combining these two systems, Ong explains, is that both processes operate at similarly high temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius or more. Combining them in a single plant would thus allow the two components to exchange heat with minimal energy losses. In fact, the fuel cell would generate enough heat to sustain the gasification part of the process, she says, eliminating the need for a separate heating system, which is usually provided by burning a portion of the coal.

Coal gasification, by itself, works at a lower temperature than combustion and “is more efficient than burning,” Ong says. First, the coal is pulverized to a powder, which is then heated in a flow of hot steam, somewhat like popcorn kernels heated in an air-popper. The heat leads to chemical reactions that release gases from the coal particles — mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both of which can produce electricity in a solid oxide fuel cell.

In the combined system, these gases would then be piped from the gasifier to a separate fuel cell stack, or ultimately, the fuel cell system could be installed in the same chamber as the gasifier so that the hot gas flows straight into the cell. In the fuel cell, a membrane separates the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the oxygen, promoting an electrochemical reaction that generates electricity without burning the fuel.

This illustration depicts a possible configuration for the combined system proposed by MIT researchers. At the bottom, steam (pink arrows) passes through pulverized coal, releasing gaseous fuel (red arrows) made up of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This fuel goes into a solid oxide fuel cell (disks near top), where it reacts with oxygen from the air (blue arrows) to produce electricity (loop at right). Illustration: Jeffrey Hanna

Because there is no burning involved, the system produces less ash and other air pollutants than would be generated by combustion. It does produce carbon dioxide, but this is in a pure, uncontaminated stream and not mixed with air as in a conventional coal-burning plant. That would make it much easier to carry out carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) — that is, capturing the output gas and burying it underground or disposing of it some other way — to eliminate or drastically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. In conventional plants, nitrogen from the air must be removed from the stream of gas in order to carry out CCS.

One of the big questions answered by this new research, which used simulations rather than lab experiments, was whether the process would work more efficiently using steam or carbon dioxide to react with the particles of coal. Both methods have been widely used, but most previous attempts to study gasification in combination with fuel cells chose the carbon dioxide option. This new study demonstrates that the system produces two to three times as much power output when steam is used instead.

Conventional coal-burning power plants typically have very low efficiency; only 30 percent of the energy contained in the fuel is actually converted to electricity. In comparison, the proposed combined gasification and fuel cell system could achieve efficiencies as high as 55 to 60 percent, Ong says, according to the simulations.

Advanced ultracritical coal plants can get to 52% efficiency

The hotter coal (or any thermal plant - natural gas and nuclear) can run then the more efficient they can be.

Upgrading existing plants and building new high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal-fired power plants addresses climate change concerns in two important ways. In the near term, emissions can be reduced by upgrading existing plants or building new HELE plants. Such plants emit almost 20% less CO2 than a subcritical unit operating at a similar load. Over the longer term, HELE plants can further facilitate emission reductions because coal-fired plants operating at the highest efficiencies are also the most appropriate option for CCS retrofit.

The best new coal plants in China are in the Ultra-supercritical 44-46% efficiency range.

Developments in AUSC steam cycles are expected to continue this trend. AUSC coal-fired plants are designed with an inlet steam temperature to the turbine of 700–760°C. Average metal temperatures of the final superheater and final reheater could be higher, up to about 815°C. Nickel-based alloy materials are needed to meet this demanding requirement. Various research programs are underway to develop AUSC plants. If successful, a commercial AUSC-based plant would be expected to achieve efficiencies in the range of 45–52% (LHV [net], hard coal). A plant operating at 48% efficiency (HHV) would emit up to 28% less CO2 than a subcritical plant, and up to 10% less than a corresponding USC plant. Commercial AUSC plants could be widely available by 2025, with the first units coming online in the near future.

 

[The Bread Guy]

PMJT to apologize for Komagata Maru in House of Commons ...

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that on May 18, 2016, he will make a formal apology in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident.

This year will mark the 102nd anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, where 376 passengers of mostly Sikh descent arrived in Vancouver and were refused entry into Canada due to the discriminatory laws of the time.

The Prime Minister made the announcement at Vaisakhi on the Hill concluding a three day religious ceremony, where Sikh scriptures were read continuously to commemorate Vaisakhi.

PMSH apologized in 2008, but ...

... as soon as (PM Harper) left the stage members of the Sikh community rushed to the podium denouncing the apology and said they wanted it made on the floor of the House of Commons.

"The apology was unacceptable," said Jaswinder Singh Toor, president of The Descendants of Komagatamaru Society.

"We were expecting the prime minister of Canada to do the right thing. The right thing was … like the Chinese Head Tax," said Toor, referring to Harper's full apology to the Chinese-Canadian community in 2006 for the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants who came to Canada between 1885 and 1923 ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm going to post this here since it demonstrates the convergence between technology and politics. The proposed gassification/fuel cell system is far more efficient than a straight thermal system (in technical terms, it is not limited by the Carnot cycle), and could be even more efficient by tapping the waste heat to run a bottoming cycle engine (maybe a steam turbine, or maybe a gas turbine using the hot exhaust gasses, much like a turbocharger).

The article "sells" the idea by bowing to the church of global warming, and any serious attempts to develop this will probably have to be marketed like this. Not mentioned is the real benefit; cutting the input costs in half (burn 1/2 the coal for the same amount of energy) is a huge boost in productivity, and increasing productivity is the only way *we* can pay for the expensive welfare state that has been built since the 1960's. Cheap and reliable energy is key to a modern economy (ask Ontario how losing cheap and reliable energy is working out), so any serious politician, economist or interested members of the public should be advocating for and inversting in these sorts of technologies as infrastructure, rather than "green" energy boondoggles or Performing Arts Centres as infrastructure.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/mit-proposes-gasification-fuel-cell.html

Just a couple of small points, if I may Thuc.

I read the article carefully through and through: They claim no combustion, but where the heck do they get their steam from ???

Second, why on god's green earth would we, in Canada, want to go back to coal based technology for electricity production when we completely got out of that business altogether ?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jen Gerson, writing in the National Post, has it about right, I think: Thomas Mulcair is well rid of the "new" NDP and it is Rachel Notley who was rejected ... because she wants to lead a successful NDP government.

I suspect that Altair might be right. Premier Notley might, like Premier Bob Rae, be a better Liberal than she is a Dipper.

 

[PuckChaser]

Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.

Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party?

 

[Jed]

Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.

Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party?

:nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

Just a couple of small points, if I may Thuc.

I read the article carefully through and through: They claim no combustion, but where the heck do they get their steam from ???

Second, why on god's green earth would we, in Canada, want to go back to coal based technology for electricity production when we completely got out of that business altogether ?

OGBD:

The coal is gasified to release Hydrogen.  The Hydrogen is then passed through the fuel cell to create electricity. Electricity is used to create steam.  Heat is a byproduct of  the entire process that can also be utilized to raise steam (or at least high value heat for space heating / district heating).

The overall efficiency of the plant then rises to 60% which is at the low end of capabilities for a Combined Heat and Power Plant (60 to 90% being the norms I believe) and almost twice as efficient as a diesel powered infernal combustion engine.

Coal is still plentiful and cheap and it is easier to manage one Chimney stack than it is to manage a million exhaust stacks (or a thousand windmills).

And that nice pure CO2 would do a great job of combining with H2O to make duckweed and tomatoes.

 

[PuckChaser]

I have a feeling that even if you tripled the efficiency of coal, the climate lobby would still demand that you ban it. They have too much at stake in the electric car/wind turbine industry.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have a feeling that even if you tripled the efficiency of coal, the climate lobby would still demand that you ban it. They have too much at stake in the electric car/wind turbine industry.

No argument here.  And the stake is financial - not philosophical.

 

[Journeyman]

Politics of convenience.

Did anyone else think of a former-Army General who, rumour has it,* first approached the Conservative Party and who now is relegated to the Liberal back bench until he proves his Liberal Party loyalty? 


* I've seen it published several times, but I fear distrust lawyers.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.

Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party? politics

FTFY.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Did anyone else think of a former-Army General who, rumour has it,* first approached the Conservative Party and who now is relegated to the Liberal back bench until he proves his Liberal Party loyalty? 


* I've seen it published several times, but I fear distrust lawyers.

It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I for one am bloody grateful he didn't get the job.

 

[Kirkhill]

You know:  I'm starting to sense a trend in the commentary.

No matter what the politics of the people from my province.  No matter what creed they espouse.  The rest of Canada is happy to relegate us to being Albertans.  Apparently Tom Mulcair and Naomi Klein were done in by us Albertans.

As a Scot the position is familiar.  I sense much of the sameness for the Quebecois.  And maybe the Maritimers.  And perhaps BC.

Vimy was the start of a national legend of unity.  It served for a decade or two and then was forgotten.  I suspect that its remembrance will do little to improve Canadian unity in the current environment.

Cosmopolitans, Internationalists, Nationalists and Provincialists.  Cross hatch with protestant/catholic/jew/muslim/sikh and anarchist/marxist/communist/socialist/liberal/libertarian/conservative/power-hungry.

 

[Kirkhill]

It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.

Who is most likely to follow orders?

 

[blacktriangle]

It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.

Part of me suspects that the Liberal "vision" for the military has more in common with a PRes unit than it does with the CA circa 2006-2010.