- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
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.
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.
I read up until the word “narrative”. Anyone using that word is way too influenced by corporate controlled media to be taken seriously.
I will die on this hill, because I’ve studied the evolution of right wing propaganda over the past 30 years.
Remember “Fair”, and “Balanced”? Remember “slant”? Remember “bias”? Remember “partisan”? “Narrative” is the new black, and it serves the exact same purpose- to convey the idea that everything is a matter of personal opinion, there is no right or wrong, and by extension there is no objective reality.
The purpose is to create a general sense that nothing you hear on the news is to be trusted, because everything is presented out of some hidden agenda, and since everyone has an agenda and everyone is obviously a miserly selfish narcissist like conservatives who ever only think about themselves, then why should you trust anyone?
Republican Agenda 101:
“Scientists say that a comet will annihilate all life on Earth one week from now.”
“Yeah they say that, but I heard that they are suicidal. They want the Earth to be destroyed! Did you know that they are also gay trans monsters who eat your babies at night? How can you trust them?”
“But the science…”
“That science was made by rich fat cat academics in the pockets of the government.”
“Actually, private corporations have far more inf…”
“*snicker* Oh great another nut conspiracy communist fascist democrat! What did I tell you, mob, they are all the same”
It’s so classic it’s not even funny anymore.
Everything is presented with an agenda, though. That’s literally the job of the editorial board: to make sure what they’re publishing is within the agenda of the publication and the publisher.
News outlets have used jargon and targeted exclusion of facts in order to present a certain take on a story without highlighting that they’re editorializing for as long as there have been news outlets.
It’s totally fair, and healthy even, to question the motivations behind the choices made in writing or presenting the news. Just deciding that some writers or publishers are impartial while refusing to examine how they actually present stories is just picking a team and going to bed.
Sometimes the agenda at play is valuable and pro-social. That doesn’t make it not an agenda.
why would you believe anything different?
You can only stretch facts so far before it becomes an obvious lie. Not everything is a matter of personal opinion.