subscribe to the RSS Feed

Monday, March 27, 2017

The New Job

Posted by Tim Stobbs on December 3, 2008

So for those who are curious I’m loving the new job.  Yes I’m looking at piles of draft legislation and emissions data so there is some not so exciting parts to it, but I’m also working with some very intelligent people who appear to be on the right track.  If only we could get any level of government to finish some legislation so we can get on with the business of planning a response to it.  Right now it’s like trying to plan on who to walk across quicksand, the rules keep changing ever second or two and your scared you are going to be pulled under if you chose wrong.

Perhaps the one thing that is exciting me the most about the job was apparently I can on at a good time.  Upper management is looking for ideas for the shorter term to reduce emissions and produce power.  They also realize that you can’t really discount anything at this stage, so it’s an open field to push any crazy ideas anyone within the group has to cut CO2 emissions.  Anything goes at this stage regardless of how crazy of an idea it is.

So I’ve decided to see what all of you think.  Yep that’s right, I want you all to tell me what you would do if you were faced with an increasing demand for power and CO2 emissions targets that would fully kick in by 2020 (reducing CO2 emission by 20 to 32%).  What would you like to see done?  Plug me any ideas you have and I’ll pass them along.

Comments

13 Responses to “The New Job”
  1. It might help us if you were a little more specific on what the corporation was doing? I went back to see if you had discussed it before, but all you mentioned was that you were now working for a “crown corporation”. What field are they working in?

  2. jo says:

    My suggestion is: bicycles for everyone!! Bikes should be subsidized and our roads should be designed for commuting and traveling by bike. The pay-offs re: carbon emissions and health would be astounding.

  3. modzi says:

    Being in a province with wind… the way to go would be wind turbines. have gas turbine station (highly efficient and less emission compared to clean coal technology) on standby when energy fluctuates. Also Nuclear plant as standby is a good option as they can kick in power real quick into the grid, but word nuclear makes people go crazy as they just don’t get it. Also I have no intention to reply to the ones who want to argue in this comment page about and against various options.

  4. Money Minder says:

    fully subsidized transit passes for commuters and students.

    In one country (I think it might be the UK) students get free bus passes and so does one parent if the child is under 16.

    Fewer school buses. There are 15 school buses coming and going from my daughter’s school each day. What’s with that?

  5. Start a suggestion program with significant prizes or call it a contest or whatever. Advertise it on line and in the media.

    A blog dedicated to this purpose may serve as a “brain storming process” and one idea may lead to another and so.

    CM

  6. billst says:

    Im confused, isn’t the government paying you to come up with these ideas? Why would i pay taxes for your job; then give you ideas so you dont have to work?

  7. Andy says:

    I’m not sure how easy it is for people to connect personal power generation (e.g. solar, wind) to the grid in Sask. Making this as easy and cheap as possible might encourage more people to do some of their own power generation. If SaskPower buys back any surplus power generated as well, that’s even better.

    I highly support heavily subsidized public transportation. People aren’t likely to accept the inconvenience of bus schedules unless it saves them significant money. Make it genuinely worth their time to take the bus.

    Publicize any government incentives to improve the efficiency of houses and apartments. I’m thinking of rebates (or tax rebates) on insulation, or people who are particularly low power users, or things like that.

  8. Traciatim says:

    Just always keep in the back of your mind in any of the decisions you make “CO2 is not a pollutant” . . . repeat it over and over and over. CO2 is required for all life on earth to exist and increased amounts really help plant life and the biosphere flourish.

  9. Rosie says:

    What I see lacking right now is a major transfer of money from building new power generation to a massive national retrofitting program so that we can bring our consumption way down.

    In BC right now, BC Hydro faces protests every time they try and implement even “green” programs like micro hydro or wind, because no one wants these in their backyards. I think if they shifted that money into paying for all of us to insulate, put in solar hot water heaters, upgrade old appliances, etc, it would be a big step toward finding some balance and having individuals see that their carbon emissions are a serious issue. I believe this has been successfully done in Europe?

  10. Derek says:

    Does creating “carbon sinks” help, an idea would be to have “green roofs” on tall buildings with flat tops, where you can grow grass and trees.

  11. Canadian Dream says:

    Frog,

    Ah, my mistake. I forgot I have yet to make it clear. I’m working for the power generation crown corp. I won’t name names to avoid a Google hit on this page.

    Billst,

    Actually I’m paid to come up with a plan to help reduce all their air pollution (including excessive CO2 emissions). I already have a stack of ideas, but I figured smart readers might have a few I haven’t thought off. So hence the question.

    Andy,

    Actually I’m already got two ideas in the works to address small power generation and consumption at the same time.

    I can’t do much about public transit directly, but indirectly I putting in an idea on modifying company policy to allow cheaper bus passes to employees. It may not go anywhere, but at least I’m trying to change things.

    Rosie,

    Actually there is already a program in place for to reduce consumption in SK. I personally think it could do more with some modifications to it.

    Traciatim,

    Correct. CO2 is not a pollutant at low levels. Burning the back log of the last 50 million years of carbon (via coal, oil, etc) in under 10 years into CO2 is a pollutant. Not to mention all the other pollutants created when you burn coal.

    It’s interesting to see that regardless of any CO2 regulations people are questioning coal fired power generation because of the existing emissions regulations that are coming into play in 2015. It’s going to cost a lot of money to clean up things up.

    Tim

  12. Joan says:

    Here’s a wacky idea. I can’t remember where I read it, but it involved a bicyclist attaching some sort of battery to a bike to store the energy generated from the peddling of the bike. Apparently, not much energy will be collected from a bicyclist, but can we extend this idea to collecting energy generated from moving cars or buses or trains and store it somwewhere for future use? Or is this idea too far out?

home | top