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.
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.
no shit sherlock ?
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter. The world will always need hydrocarbons, so they will always be valuable. They are needed for plastics, chemicals and all kinds of useful things besides fuel.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
What made them think they ever had that?
Anyway, the good news is hearing we are seriously breaking the habit. But energy is a trivial issue... How are we going to use it to distribute water to where it is needed and away from where it isn't?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
When everyone who is threatening to move to Canada actually moves there.
We have more hydroelectricty than we can use... Does this not qualify as renewable energy?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Hey, dumbfuck. Yeah, I'm talking to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hear global consumption of fossil fuel continues to increase. Can you stop reporting wishful thinking as actual reality. It's incredibly tiresome.
is just wishful thinking from a few years back when Harper was PM. What kind of "energy superpower" can't even export our "energy" resources to global markets? Something that doesn't exist can not possibly be threatened.
$8.3 Billion is not cheap. While it will last for 100 years it will become silted up and is not renewable.
Aside from you being wrong that cheap renewable energy is not feasible now,
you are also wrong that the currently still more expensive forms of renewable energy need tax subsidies.
What they do need is for the carbon-emissions of fossil-fuel-based electricity to be taxed with a sin-tax similar to cigarette taxes. That would level the energy economics playing field in a hurry.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I have to say. We've never been called a Superpower before... of anything.
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.
For Canada, there's a simple solution: Hockey-based renewable energy. It's simple.
1) Embed neodymium magnets in hockey pucks.
2) Run coils through hockey ice.
3) Play hockey as usual.
4) Profit.
Moving puck induces current in coils, sufficient to cover Canada's energy needs and allow Canada to continue as a new energy exporter until, and maybe after, cold fusion.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. - Bob Dylan "Subteranean Homesick Blue
I've lived in Alberta for close to 20 years now and the PC government's failure to attempt (to my knowledge) to diversify the economy has reared its head again in the latest bust cycle in the oil and gas industry. Perhaps something like this report, coupled with the low commodity prices will finally wake up the provincial government that its time to actively support other industries here. BC gives tax credits to TV and film production companies and they had a banner year in 2015. I believe Quebec gives tax breaks to game companies and Ubisoft, for example, has a huge number of employees in Montreal.
I work at a software dev company who has no oil and gas ties or customers, and surprise surprise, we are doing well during the downturn here. There is no guarantee of course but if the governments had spent some time, effort and petro dollars into trying to build and attract new industries here it probably wouldn't be quite as bad now as it is.
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.
Oil is just too useful as a chemical feedstock to make so many different things, it's a shame to just burn the stuff.
So yes, Canada's energy superpower status in danger(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean anyways), but the chemicals industry will take up the slack. Also the chemical industry will add value by turning the oil into something useful other than fuel.
Besides, the sooner a nation can get off of a natural resource based economy the less likely they are to suffer from Dutch disease.
I'm looking forward to the day we can tell the Middle East suppliers to shove it.
Table-ized A.I.
When the price of oil dipped down in the last year, that dropped the Canadian dollar, all of which had two effects: it hit the Alberta economy really hard (because of oil companies cutting production) and it was a boon to the Ontario economy (where manufacturing is strong). Suddenly buying manufactured goods from Canada was a lot less expensive, and everyone was hiring in Ontario. In a future where fossil fuels are in less demand, you'll just see exactly the same trend - a lower Canadian dollar meaning more demand for Canadian manufacturing exports. So Canada will be fine, but Alberta's going to become a "have-not" province again. Considering how they lord it over the rest of us when oil prices are high, I don't expect much of the rest of Canada to give a damn.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Only Venesuala and Saudi Arabia have greater oil reserves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But Canada's oil is expensive to recover. If demand for oil drops then so will price and Canada will be sitting on stranded assets. Even at the current price Canada's oil is not economical. Breakeven costs for existing projects such as Kearl Phase 1 stand at US$42 per barrel, with Husky’s Lloydminster (US$28), Cenvous’ Christina Lake ($26) and Suncor operations (US$30.3), WTI has declined to $30 per barrel.
Canada needs demand to grow substantially if it is going to survive - or for supply to dry up elsewhere.
That's mostly true, except I'm pretty certain Saudi Arabia is lying about their proven oil reserves. There's a lot of articles on this. Venezuela I don't think is lying, but I also don't think the government can continue to extract and sell oil as the country is currently collapsing into chaos.
Exactly. If fossil fuels were actually priced based on environmental and climactic impacts, renewables would look a lot better, but because almost every government on the planet is allowing fossil fuel companies to evade pricing in those impacts, they give those companies and their shareholders a vast subsidy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's a really stupid definition of 'renewable' then. What does it mean? Solar panels do not last forever, they decrease in output over time until they need to be replaced. Wind turbines need maintenance, and eventually they fail. so, hydroelectric is not renewable because in 100 years it will become silted up? Name one electricity source that has lasted a hundred years.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Do you even hear what you're saying? $8.3 billion for a source of clean energy that will last for 100 years? If you don't think that's "cheap", then you need to go take a look at what a new nuclear plant costs (hint: It's around $9billion). And then you've got the little issue of having to put fuel in it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The only way the demand for fossil fuels will disappear: is if a great segment of the world's population would die or disappear from a nuclear war.
Of course, Trump's foreign policy, xenophobia, and thoughtless words would make that inevitable.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I am not talking about maintenance of the turbines. I am taking about the reservoirs becoming silted up and unusable. It takes a long time but it eventually happens.
In fact the area around Fory McMurray needs to burn every so often to survive.
Natural Resources Canada says that in the boreal forest fire “is as crucial to forest renewal as the sun and rain.”
See the real time data for how Ontario achieves this. In 2015, they produced 90% of their energy from non-fossil sources. (60% nuclear + 24% hydro)
"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.
This is total BS; even with immense investment the world over, wind and solar haven't even made a dent in fossil fuel consumption. If anything, they cement the position of fossil fuels required for backing up their intermittent and unreliable power. See a short video about the reality of Germany's wind and solar, or one of the many articles about Germany's return to coal for providing reliable power. Their attempt to phase out nuclear has been a very expensive failure, and only succeeded in ramping coal consumption, including construction of new plants.
"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."
Notice the need to reaffirm their nonsense not once, but three times. The data does not support their position, so they continue to repeat the lie. Sadly, this often works.
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.
Hmm...This article just begs the question: Does the US have a power grid that can provide enough sustainable power to meet that demand? Doing some Googling & some math gets us...
A) 2.5 trillion miles driven annually in the US
B) "Electricity becomes the world's primary power source", so we'll call that a majority of miles driven, or 50%, or 1.25 trillion miles
C) If everyone drove the Tesla Model S, they would get 240 miles on a 70kWh battery, or about 3.43 miles / kWh.
D) In order to drive 1.25 trillion miles, we need to have available 1.25 trillion miles / 3.43 miles/kWh = 364.4 billion kWh.
E) The US generates 4 trillion kWh of electricity per year.
F) The US consumes 3.8 trillion kWh of electricity per year. (Worksheet 7.6.)
So, it looks like we have about 200 billion kWh to spare, which is, I'm sorry to say, not enough.
So, how does anyone expect to achieve such a lofty goal if we don't have the infrastructure in place to make it happen? (And if anyone else in the world knows that their nation has the capacity to make it happen within their country, I'd love to know.)
You could be right. It is also possible they have more than they expect to be able to sell before demand for oil disappears. That would explain why they are no longer restricting their output. “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” - Sheikh Zaki Yamani, previous Saudi Arabian oil minister.
Well, BC in Western Canada does pretty well at power generation through hydroelectric etc. I believe that Alberta is also looking at wind power but that's likely not as effective. Mobile storage may be another concern but they can generally control levels at the dams by adjusting the floodgates.
Petroleum products won't go away, but as a fuel source it may decline. We'll still have a lot of use for such things as plastic, rubber, asphalt, etc which all use petroleum products to some extent.
If you want a fair comparison you should add the following costs;
1. The transmission lines to get the electricity to where it is used. Dams have a tendency to be far from population centres.
2. Maintenance on the generators and transmission lines.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
Nice bit of editing there. The full quote is:
In case you don't know, Cenovus and Suncor are major producers of dirty Canadian tar-sand oil. So a more accurate assessment would be:
Another company with everything to lose by declaring fossil fuels are on the way out is hedging its bets.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I suspect this is exactly the case. They want to see while the getting is good, although I still think they would have made more by keeping prices higher, rather than flooding it and trying to make it up on volume...
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
There is a big difference between 50 miles and 1,000 miles,
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
Never said that. Just said that it needs to be in the comparison.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
See above.
The future is and has always been a goddamn threat. People hate change. Which is ironic because change is one thing people cannot control.
Here's the real deal about the future of fossil fuels, and cars in particular. It's sobering. Sit down.
Electric cars make sense for a lot of people, and as a second car for a lot of other people. So they -and hybrids like the Bolt and Prius- will continue to spread. As we transition to electric cars, we are also transitioning to automated driving. This is going to be the huge hit, the asteroid that kills dinosaurs.
Automated cars will be more fuel (battery or fossil fuels, it won't matter) efficient by taking the most direct route from place to place and coordinating with other cars to avoid the need for sitting at traffic lights. This means they will bypass all those places people used to stop on the way. Food outlets, gas stations stores, all sorts of impulse stores are screwed. People won't bother to direct the automated driver to stop. Hell they might even drive by asleep! A LOT of roadside businesses will whither and die.
At the same time automated driving spreads, a lot of fast food places will be installing robotic workers. Between restaurants going out of business and robots replacing people, there is going to be MASSIVE unemployment at the bottom of the workforce.
Automated cars won't crash nearly as much, so body shops and towing services will go out of business too. Electric cars also break down a lot less and when they do, they'll need specialized support, so independant mechanics will also go out of business, or at least have a lot less work.
With accidents down, the auto insurance business will take a huge hit as people no longer have accidents and consequently need less insurance and pay less premiums. A lot of insurance agents will go unemployed.
With fewer crashes, highway deaths and injuries will have a huge decline, putting hospitals at risk if they rely upon auto trauma to fund their operations.
Cities and towns accustomed to writing a lot of traffic tickets will find automated cars won't break nearly as many traffic laws, so revenue will plummet. Many of these places count on speeding ticket revenue and DUI fine revenue to fund the town operations. They're facing a calamity as the money dries up. Tax increases are inevitable.
So the decline of oil is just one change coming. The changes to society from automated driving and the coming ridiculous unemployment will make the decline of oil look like nothing.
Sig for hire.
Outstanding suggestions. Too bad I just finished spending my mod points.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Global warming is a real issue, obviously, but in this case, wrong environmental issue to be going after.
There's at least some merit in laying blame on both:
The current fires in Alberta are unlikely to have been exacerbated by suppression, said Spies. Boreal forests differ from the temperate forests further south in that they have a longer fire cycle, lots of fuel and tend to burn intensely. But their occurrence in the normally wet month of May is highly unusual and “consistent with what we expect from human-caused climate change”, according to a local scientist.
Hey mate, spare a sig?
Higher oil prices would have led to greater investment in "renewables", shortening everything.
It'll take twenty years before the world stops needing as much fossil fuel as it does now. And then africa with want it's own industrial age. Canadian oil sands will wind up being the easiest-access fossil fuels (better work conditions compared to ocean rigs and such), once global usage begins to dip, so it'll survive to the very last customer.
Of course, Canada's got a few million square clicks for wind power -- which is still the stupidest most useless form of renewal energy that's also guaranteed to have even bigger environmental problems than fossil fuels (guess what happens when you slow down the wind). And even more land for solar, should it ever become efficient enough at such latitudes.
But this is all rediculous. There's only one form of environmentally-sourced renewal power that could ever power modern civilization, and it's so obvious.
I'll give you a hint: every other energy-generation technique to date generates electricity from something, usually turbines and usually driven by boiling water. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we didn't need to generate the electricity that we need from anything? Wouldn't it be great if the electricity that we need were just produced for us directly by mother nature, for free, and fell from the sky as pure and abundant electricity? Say, millions and millions of times per year.
Ah, to dream.
It's not even really "environmentalists" that are the issue, it's career protesters. There was in interview on the news a few months ago about a women who was illegally) picketing one of the big hydroelectric projects. She was talking about how it was affecting locals, jobs, and driving up costs and etc etc. Most of her articles were complete bunk too as local power rates were in fact lower than most of the rest of the country and are in the third lowest in the CONTINENT.
The best part is when she was asked about where exactly she's from, and it turns out that she wasn't even from the province, or even the COUNTRY. Yes, she came thousands of miles to protest one of the cleanest varieties of energy projects that was nowhere near her and had nothing to do with her or anyone she was close/related to. But hey, there was going to be music, hot-dogs, and dancing at the protest (again, she mentioned all this, inviting people to come join), so why not come up and have a big party!
At the very least she is ignorant, but I fear that many of these people are not only clueless but actively being used by others to forward their own agenda. Seems it's pretty easy nowadays for a big corp to get a bus-load of people to "protest" something while they themselves hide in the shadows.
Canada is a third world country that doesn't know it.
What I mean by that is, the economy is very fragile; it relies incredibly heavily on primary resources. There is pathetically little quaternary industry. Honestly, it is difficult to think of many Canadian R&D companies that are world players, in spite of it being the 10th largest economy in the world: RIM (now Blackberry, we all know how that's been going), Bombardier, Ubisoft Montreal (seriously that's the 3rd one I could come up with).
Here in Calgary (where all the big O&G companies are based) we used to have a decent tech sector, but that died 10-15 years ago. Everybody just kinda shrugged and said "Meh, we got oil.". We're a one trick pony, and everyone's bored of our act.
Not only that, but even within the oil-sands, there was such a pig-headed attitude towards innovation. They would rather do things the old and expensive way because they trusted it more. The number one priority was keeping the rig running: barrels per minute * price per barrel, that's all that mattered. So if you came to them with a new product that was 10x faster, 10x cheaper, 10x smaller, etc., they just look at you and say "It looks different from the one I'm using." I wish I was kidding.
If the oil-sands had spent some of the time innovating and reducing the cost of production, while they had the money to do so, they may not be in such a terrible situation as they are now. "Oil will never drop below $100." Now they're scrambling to cut costs just to stay alive. Well guess what, you can't improve production costs overnight, but you can layoff thousands of people.
Imagine how great it would be if we (Western nations) could tell the Saudis what they could do with their oil surplus? Nope, instead we've got to pander to one of the most brutal dictatorships in existence. All of our leaders (Obama, Harper, Hollande, Cameron, and more) go to "pay their respects" at the funeral of a man whose government routinely punishes rape victims worse than the rapists themselves; a government that is one of the (if not THE) major instigator of Islamic terrorism worldwide, both directly and indirectly through the spread of Wahhabism.
This entire problem has been generated by the Saudis, to crush any competition from producers who can't compete at lower oil prices. They don't even have us by the balls. We're squeezing our own balls, and thanking them for the privilege.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
The cold hard fact is that we're past the tipping point. This is for the species, boys and girls.
If Canada wants to survive, they need to get rid of all tax subsidies, tax exemptions, depreciation, and tax exclusions for all fossil fuels, no matter what they are.
And take any resulting funds and plow them into First Nations job creation in building renewables.
All renewables. Solar, wind, hydro, forest waste biofuel.
Not pipelines
Adapt. You have very little time.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --