Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Energy Superpower Status Threatened As World Shifts Off Fossil Fuel (www.cbc.ca)
Robson Fletcher, reporting for CBC News: Canada's status as an "energy superpower" is under threat because the global dominance of fossil fuels could wane faster than previously believed, according to a draft report from a federal government think-tank obtained by CBC News. "It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status," reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada. "It's absolutely not pie in the sky," said Michal Moore from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. "These folks are being realistic -- they may not be popular, but they're being realistic." Marty Reed, CEO of Evok Innovations -- a Vancouver-based cleantech fund created through a $100-million partnership with Cenovus and Suncor -- had a similar take after reading the draft report.
You need to know the definitions of censorship before you cry about it.
"Old man yells at systemd"
You will probably be modded to -1, not because of censorship, but because your whiny post contains nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will care what you have to say.
Not that anyone will read this post either. We'll circle the drain together.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "superpower." From the wikipedia article, Canada's GDP is 10th in the world, and 15th per capita (nominal). It's a first world nation with a very high HDI. It's also a member of the G7 nations, which represent 64% of the world's wealth.
I think one thing people overlook is that Canada has a massive treasure trove of natural resources and a very good setup for a modern economy (good income equality, good infrastructure). This combined with a high rate of immigration means the population is growing and companies will flourish (ideally). But, you never know. Resources are 20% of the GDP of Canada (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/key-facts/16013) so if that all went away at once it'd be a huge problem. I doubt it would go down like that though.
We're going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels faster than anyone thinks? I'm not sure how that's going to happen.
It's clearly going to take a generation or two to transition to electric vehicles, and even then, anyone who needs a long-hauler or high-endurance vehicle isn't going to switch to EVs, as they're not very practical for that. How about air travel? No good alternatives there for liquid hydrocarbon fuels - at least not that I can think of. Ships and ocean-going vessels? I don't think there are any realistic alternatives there. Manufacturing? Nope, lots of oil-based products still needed. And while bio-fuels or alternatives can take up some of this, we're a long, long way from having a realistic capacity to make up the difference. What am I missing here?
It's obvious that fossil fuel use certainly will wane, and electricity will take up the slack where possible, because that makes sense, but in reading the paper, they seem to skip over a number of thorny issues where there simply weren't yet practical alternatives to fossil fuels.
"At a minimum, this plausible future would suggest that governments ensure that the risks of further investments in oil and gas infrastructure be borne by private interests rather than taxpayers," the report reads.
Ah... okay, I get it.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I predict these views will be censored and modded to -1. For a community that supposedly favors the free and open exchange of ideas, Slashdot isn't very tolerant of opposing views. Voicing my opinion that AGW is a scam will result in my post being censored to -1. If AGW were real, there would be no need to censor dissenting views; the facts would prove the point far better than any moderation. The censorship is necessary because the facts aren't on the side of the AGW evangelists.
Modding you down not because of the opposing view - but rather because your post contains NO USEFUL INFORMATION.
- What is AGW?
- How is it a scam?
- Why do you hold the opposing view its a scam vs. the remainder of the public?
- etc.
AC posting isn't a bad thing. AC posting without value add gets downvotted like everybody else.
Around here, we tend to be okay with dissenting views, as long as you provide evidence or interesting reasoning that poses new questions. When your post gets modded down, it will be because we're still waiting for you to provide either of those things....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Your comment has zero evidence or claims to back it up simply a statement of what you believed and a claim that you'd be downvoted which you equated to censorship. In fact, the only moderation to your comment so far has been +3 interesting. It sounds like you have a bit of a persecution complex.
We're going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels faster than anyone thinks? I'm not sure how that's going to happen.
According to Bloomberg Business, "Electric Cars Could Wreak Havoc on Oil Markets Within a Decade"
Conventional energy will be obsolete by 2030 according to Swedbank: there are four key categories of technologies all of which are improving by double and triple digit basis every year. Each one of them is disruptive in it's own way.
The Fort McMurray fire was a result of 100+ years of fire suppression with a massive fuel load. It was a sign alright, poor forestry management was the primary culprit here. Well that and people living WAY to close to the urban-wildland interface.
The good news is, once you have a huge fire like that, you're likely not to have one again for another 50-100 years since you know, all of the fuel is burnt.
Global warming is a real issue, obviously, but in this case, wrong environmental issue to be going after.
This is a suspect phrase: "cheap renewable electricity".
It will only be "cheaper" by boosting the prices for all other types of electricity.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
This is a suspect phrase: "cheap renewable electricity".
It will only be "cheaper" by boosting the prices for all other types of electricity.
Boosting by attempting to properly price the complete costs of existing sources of energy to include all their current externalities?
If it takes a generation or two to transition to electric vehicles, we are screwed. I think it will probably take one generation. By about 2025 they will be as cheap to buy as petrol cars and much, much cheaper to run. The second hand market will also have taken off.
The real tipping point is closer than you think. It's not when 90% of vehicles are not using fossil fuels, it's when demand starts to fall significantly enough that it has a major financial impact on Canada and other countries currently doing quite well out of them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not necessarily. As supplies eventually wane, the price of crude may actually skyrocket, and savvy investors could make a killing. Demand is still going to be there. Are we going to have realistic alternatives for technologies that require hydrocarbon-based fuel, like airliners? The ones we're building *right now* will undoubtedly still be in service in 20-30 years.
Besides, people have been predicting the death of the oil industry since the 50's, and it's always been "20 years out". I guarantee you that twenty years from now, someone else will also be predicting the end of oil "20 years from now". No one is foolish enough to believe oil supplies will last forever, but we've certainly managed to skirt past peak-oil predictions by almost half a century so far. If that track record holds true, I'd say the oil industry is going to be around for another half century at least, until it's eventually no longer economical to drill for natural oil, at which point everyone will turn to biofuel or synthetics, I suppose.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It's obvious that fossil fuel use certainly will wane, and electricity will take up the slack where possible, because that makes sense, but in reading the paper, they seem to skip over a number of thorny issues where there simply weren't yet practical alternatives to fossil fuels.
Exactly. However, consider the people with whom we are contending. These people didn't major in STEM. They majored in english, sociology or the humanities instead because science, technology, engineering and math were "too hard" for them. They have little or no practical idea of how any of the science or technology of modern life actually works. What they do have are strong (unfounded) opinions and dreams of green utopian nonsense put into their pliable minds by "smart people" and they lash out whenever an engineer or somebody with superior technical knowledge and a more pragmatic outlook comes along and bursts their bubble. Until we have equal or nearly equal substitutes for petroleum, we will continue burning fossil fuels. To ask for sacrifices before then to reduce fossil fuel usage is akin to demanding that some part of humanity have a lower standard of living. Ever tried selling "belt tightening" to the voters? Hell, the "let's all tighten our belts for the great ideological struggle" didn't work for the Soviets in an oppressive and authoritarian society. How much less well will belt tightening sell in a liberal and democratic society? No, the answer to the fossil fuel question must be technological, not political or social. To suggest otherwise is to depart from reality and abandon common sense.
It's clearly going to take a generation or two to transition to electric vehicles, and even then, anyone who needs a long-hauler or high-endurance vehicle isn't going to switch to EVs, as they're not very practical for that.
LOLWUT? EVs are already very nearly as practical as gasoline vehicles, even for long travel distances unless you'd rather set some cross-continental speed record than take a short break from driving, and faster-charging, longer-lasting, more energy-dense batteries are being developed all the time. ICEs in new cars will be a rarity within 20 years.
How about air travel? No good alternatives there for liquid hydrocarbon fuels - at least not that I can think of.
You're right on this one, at least for large aircraft. Without some unforeseen radical breakthrough in battery technology, large aircraft will be running on liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future - but that could mean biofuels.
Ships and ocean-going vessels? I don't think there are any realistic alternatives there.
Batteries and wind for small craft, nuclear and wind for large ones. "Wind" here may mean exotic new forms of sails.
Manufacturing? Nope, lots of oil-based products still needed.
Enough to sustain the giant gaping hole in demand from most of the world's land vehicles running on whatever powers the local grid?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Just because a private organization can censor speech within its domain, doesn't mean that it's not censorship.
And a private legally censoring opinions is just a morally and ethically objectionable as is a government censoring opinions.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
We don't have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for Canada to lose their "energy superpower" status. Canada's oil comes from Alberta and Saskatchewan for the most part (there's some in Newfoundland too but that's a different matter), and more specifically from tar sands. Tar sands, beyond being the dirtiest source of oil you can find, are also quite hard to extract oil from, requiring the oil prices to stay above a fairly high value. The recent oil price crash has had a serious impact on our oil production: Alberta's economy tanked hard, they started seeing companies close down, the whole lot.
If we only replaced average commuter cars across the globe, chances are oil prices would dip below what's economically viable for tar sands extraction.
"...Fossil fuels have enabled civilization to progress more in the last 150 years or so they've been in use, than in all of man's history..."
A similar assertion could have been made for slavery. However that's not a valid reason alone to keep it.