I was talking to a friend about this and he told me about the Everwind Green Hydrogen and Ammonia project and its First Nations equity partners. Seems like a progressive project and great example of investing in renewable energy. Thoughts?
I'm a big unabashed fan of the Premier's so I try to take everything that's pitched and understand it in the most charitable possible light. It's a tough job and communicating any sort of nuance in the modern media is almost impossible.
I wasn't being totally funny in my opening gambit. I do agree we should always be open to talking this stuff through. But it requires a lot of people getting informed in detail rather than just ideologically.
I also believe all lines are curves. Both no resource extraction and reliance on resource extraction are loser positions. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. Our just is to find that ever-moving target.
One thing you haven't commented on yet, or just haven't got to yet is development of upstream industries in synergy to reduce costs and improve inputs for downstream industries. We might want to look at what we want have in resources, what that looks like in downstream production (wood to furniture or steel to ships, etc.) and then determine what to invest in. Maybe we can find things we aren't even thinking of, like USB connector fabrication (from gold) or carbon filters (from coal) or wallboard (from gypsum) or antacids (from limestone), whatever. We had a bit of a glass industry once (sand, carbon/ash, magnesium, limestone, various metals or other substances for colour), should we revive that? I can't even find a glassblowing class at NASCAD, but maybe there's one somewhere else. It seems to me that developing those raw materials that go together naturally into some other product and then investing in the manufacture of that secondary product would be the way to go, even if it uses some small ancillary amount of materials we can't extract.
My hero, ( I'm so annoyed that you say it so much better than I), really John, simply a stunningly accurate assessment of our immediate government pro-extraction situation...and for all time.
I would only add that the wind-to-electricity-to-hydrogen-to-ammonia play is also dependent on extraction as it is really a wind-to-electricity-to-WATER-to-hydrogen-to-ammonia process...millions of litres of NS potable water per day extraction (the water never comes back into our watershed). Also the case for the whole process, (including shipping to Europe & return), being a green process, remains highly questionable. Our previous laudable goal of getting us off coal should remain the priority in developing our renewable energy infrastructure.
I was talking to a friend about this and he told me about the Everwind Green Hydrogen and Ammonia project and its First Nations equity partners. Seems like a progressive project and great example of investing in renewable energy. Thoughts?
https://everwindfuels.com/point_tupper_economic_infographic.pdf
Thank you for the note!
I'm a big unabashed fan of the Premier's so I try to take everything that's pitched and understand it in the most charitable possible light. It's a tough job and communicating any sort of nuance in the modern media is almost impossible.
I wasn't being totally funny in my opening gambit. I do agree we should always be open to talking this stuff through. But it requires a lot of people getting informed in detail rather than just ideologically.
I also believe all lines are curves. Both no resource extraction and reliance on resource extraction are loser positions. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. Our just is to find that ever-moving target.
One thing you haven't commented on yet, or just haven't got to yet is development of upstream industries in synergy to reduce costs and improve inputs for downstream industries. We might want to look at what we want have in resources, what that looks like in downstream production (wood to furniture or steel to ships, etc.) and then determine what to invest in. Maybe we can find things we aren't even thinking of, like USB connector fabrication (from gold) or carbon filters (from coal) or wallboard (from gypsum) or antacids (from limestone), whatever. We had a bit of a glass industry once (sand, carbon/ash, magnesium, limestone, various metals or other substances for colour), should we revive that? I can't even find a glassblowing class at NASCAD, but maybe there's one somewhere else. It seems to me that developing those raw materials that go together naturally into some other product and then investing in the manufacture of that secondary product would be the way to go, even if it uses some small ancillary amount of materials we can't extract.
https://thebeens.substack.com/p/its-not-capitalism-thats-bad-its
I agree adding value is central. I've hit it about ten times so far this year but I think this is my best shot - at least most widely read - so far.
My bad, yes you did.
My hero, ( I'm so annoyed that you say it so much better than I), really John, simply a stunningly accurate assessment of our immediate government pro-extraction situation...and for all time.
I would only add that the wind-to-electricity-to-hydrogen-to-ammonia play is also dependent on extraction as it is really a wind-to-electricity-to-WATER-to-hydrogen-to-ammonia process...millions of litres of NS potable water per day extraction (the water never comes back into our watershed). Also the case for the whole process, (including shipping to Europe & return), being a green process, remains highly questionable. Our previous laudable goal of getting us off coal should remain the priority in developing our renewable energy infrastructure.
This is the most succinct expose on the grifters who come to this province , promise prosperity only to leave us with less than we started with!