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.

Comments

Re:Canada gets screwed by the AGW scam

[SirSlud]

You need to know the definitions of censorship before you cry about it.

Re:Canada? Superpower status?

[iONiUM]

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.

Re:Canada gets screwed by the AGW scam

[dgatwood]

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.

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....

Disruptive technologies and the S curve.

[Layzej]

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.

Re:Disruptive technologies and the S curve.

[Dutch Gun]

Like I said, it's inevitable that the oil market shrinks, but that video didn't address the areas where electricity isn't practical. Neither did the paper. The speaker asserts that "all new vehicles will be electric by 2025. What about vehicles that regularly need to travel more than 300 miles? There are still a lot of those, and he never addresses those points. I agree with a lot of his analyses, but not his conclusions, and I think his timelines are a bit optimistic as well. The notion of your house and car being able to transfer energy on demand (both ways) was sort of an interesting idea, though, and one I hadn't heard before. But again, I think his timeline of 2030 is a decade too early at a minimum. Infrastructure changes *very* slowly, so I think you'll see a slow transition over decades rather than a quick switch, as he seems to be promising.

About three-quarters of what gets refined from every barrel goes to transportation needs. Some of that is cars, but planes, trains, and trucks fall into those categories, and electricity won't work for all of those. Gasoline apparently accounts for 43% of the market, so let's assume those can ALL be replaced by EVs (which I think is optimistic as well) for argument's sake.

That's a good start, but what replaces the other half of the current oil market? We're still going to need some sort of hydrocarbon-based fuel to fuel planes, power ships, and drive long haul vehicles until some miracle energy source replaces it, or until we're generating so much excess electricity that we can afford to use that excess to create synthetic or alternative fuels with it. And that doesn't even address the other uses for oil which are non-transportation. In the near future, it seems more likely that we're going to struggle building capacity for the massively increased demand for electricity as we transition from gas-powered cars to EVs.

At the moment, I think it's wildly optimistic for anyone to assume the oil industry isn't going to still have a very long lifespan ahead of it, even if in a reduced capacity.

Re:Canada gets screwed by the AGW scam

[bravecanadian]

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?

Re: Canada gets screwed by the AGW scam

[BlackSabbath]

"...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.