Coal won't be phased out anytime soon

Hey Canadian friends, anyone know if your passport needs to be valid for x months after the expected return date to enter the States ? Someone told me it had to be valid for 6 months but looking online I found something that said it wasn't the case for Countries like the US, Mexico, etc..

Anyone can confirm ?

e/ : Nvm I searched Google in English this time and found more and better answers Thanks anyway guys.

This post was edited by Twax on Jul 11 2017 02:46pm

Eventually. Right now Solar and Wind make up a very small fraction of the energy used. Plus they both require very high initial investments and in the case of Wind requires a large amount of land. Wind also is quite destructive to the ecosystem because it kills a huge number of birds and bats in the area. And of course if the wind isnt blowing then you're up shit creek.

Right now we dont really have any realistic other options besides Nuclear but everyone is fearful of it.

Internationally sure but coal is only 8% of Canadian energy.

Love to see what kinda source puts out that kind of ridiculously misleading stat. This from the Global Wind Energy Council (re: 2016)

"Wind power penetration levels continue to increase, led by Denmark pushing 40%, followed by Uruguay, Portugal and Ireland with well over 20%, Spain and Cyprus around 20%, Germany at 16%; and the big markets of China, the US and Canada get 4, 5.5, and 6% of their power from wind, respectively"

Wikipedia as a quick look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

That kind of apathetic and defeatist attitude exactly is the problem m9.

Canada at 4% seems off given that all renewals in Canada is about 6% could be though since hydro is separate at 11.6%

Source: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/pdf/EnergyFactBook_2016_17_En.pdf

I am just trusting this to not be full of shit though, dont care enough to check multiple sources etc

This post was edited by Nearin on Jul 11 2017 02:53pm

Ya I don't care enough to dig out the exact numbers by year etc., but some serious gymnastics were done to find a 0%. #manninginstitute

"If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s. At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good."

Nobody said its the miracle cure answer, but its good piece where possible. Also citation still needed.