Tories love the oilsands

[ToadBrother]

Fossil fuels have built the world economy today. Overall the health of humanity is better than it ever has been. But you are also evading the real issue: renewables other than hydro require too much capital and produce too little power. They cannot be used to run the economy we have.

This is a bizarre justification for using fossil fuels.

Beyond that, at some point, we're going to run out. Oil has probably, at best, got another 50-100 years before it becomes too expensive to extract. Yes, lots of coal and methane, but coal is nasty stuff and methane is hard to extract in large volumes.

If an economy is based on an unsustainable trajectory, then it doesn't really matter how well it has historically performed. At some point it will hit a brick wall.

No one is saying we can just simply stop using petroleum. But at some point we've got to look elsewhere, and now seems like as good a time as any. It's certainly better than waiting 75 years until the whole thing comes crashing down and then go "Oh, we better look at those renewables!"

In the long-term, the oil economy is going to collapse. If we don't want it to collapse, then we need to bring it in for a softlanding.

[Riverwind]

Beyond that, at some point, we're going to run out. Oil has probably, at best, got another 50-100 years before it becomes too expensive to extract. Yes, lots of coal and methane, but coal is nasty stuff and methane is hard to extract in large volumes.

One does not amputate a leg because it might develop cancer in the future. One would take rational precautions to prevent it from occurring. Trying to aggressively phase out fossil fuels before economically feasible alternatives exist is equivalent to amputating a leg. Investing in R&D and sponsering of large scale pilot projects are rational precautions given the risk.

Once we find economically feasible alternatives then we can discuss a phase out of fossil fuels.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

....No one is saying we can just simply stop using petroleum. But at some point we've got to look elsewhere, and now seems like as good a time as any. It's certainly better than waiting 75 years until the whole thing comes crashing down and then go "Oh, we better look at those renewables!"

But that is exactly what is going to happen because of the economics of the matter. There are still gains to be made in efficiencies and energy storage....it will not be a "wall", but rather a rising slope.

[eyeball]

One does not amputate a leg because it might develop cancer in the future. Once would take rational precautions to prevent it from occurring.

Actually people sometimes do amputate parts of their bodies to prevent the development of cancer. People (including a good friend of mine) who do this, are called previvors.

Edited December 17, 2009 by eyeball

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is a good time for investing in research and development of super conductors. It is a good time to invest in the design and construction of fusion power plants. It is also a good time to invest wind,water,and solar power systems. It is time to legislate geo-thermal systems for new developments. There are a great many things that could and should be done that are "green" related efforts. But carbon taxes and cap and trade have the international focus.

[Shady]

Oil has probably, at best, got another 50-100 years before it becomes too expensive to extract.

That's not true. New oil is being discovered all the time. But even if that's the case, no one is talking about natural gas. It's cheap, cleaner, and as efficient. And most importantly, quite plentiful. Which provides us with plenty of time for technology to make things like wind and solar more efficient and less expensive. Also, more nuclear power would be nice as well. It's a win-win situation. Clean power, and provides jobs.

[ToadBrother]

One does not amputate a leg because it might develop cancer in the future. One would take rational precautions to prevent it from occurring. Trying to aggressively phase out fossil fuels before economically feasible alternatives exist is equivalent to amputating a leg. Investing in R&D and sponsering of large scale pilot projects are rational precautions given the risk.

Once we find economically feasible alternatives then we can discuss a phase out of fossil fuels.

My point is that at some point, if we don't phase them out, we're simply going to be forced into a situation where we have to, and in very short order. We know what the alternatives are, we know what the various problems are, now is the time to invest in them. If wind has shortfalls and peaks, well, we need better capacitors. Same goes for tidal. Solar capture technology has improved considerably.

The oil economy wasn't built in a day, and neither will what replaced it. But to just keep driving down the same road, ignoring the warning signs as they flash by is a recipe for economic disaster. Not in our life time, to be sure, but quite possibly in our children's, and most definitely in our grand children's.

And it's not as if we don't know the various pitfalls of the current system. Even if you don't believe vomiting millions of years worth of CO2 in the atmosphere in three centuries is going to have problems, there's very direct environmental impacts (the oil sands come to mind) and geopolitical instabilities.

What happens when oil is $200 a barrel? $300 a barrel? What happens when peak oil really does happen?

[Riverwind]

We know what the alternatives are, we know what the various problems are, now is the time to invest in them. If wind has shortfalls and peaks, well, we need better capacitors. Same goes for tidal. Solar capture technology has improved considerably.

Great. Let's do the R&D. Let's do the pilot projects. But they got to prove themselves to be economically self sustaining before we can mandate their use.

The oil economy wasn't built in a day, and neither will what replaced it.

The oil economy was built because it made more economic sense than the alternatives. You cannot replace it unless the alternatives are economic.

What happens when oil is $200 a barrel? $300 a barrel? What happens when peak oil really does happen?

The economy will go into a recession and the price of oil will drop as demand eases. Eventually high oil prices will make the transition economically viable but we are much better off waiting until that happens because everyone would be in the same boat. Increasing our energy costs today while our competitors like Chinese do nothing will simply cost us jobs and income.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Oil will go up over the next few months. It will eventually reach 200 dollars a barrel. That little fact is what the government in Alberta is betting on right now. They need this just to clean up the books. Once that happens, all bets are off. The entire planet is energy dependent for production. Those with alternative energies available will save money, those without will be forced to spend money. Either way, money is involved. People seem to forget that business requires money to make money. There is a big gap between capital investment in productive efforts and the realization of profit from those ventures. The bridge is the financial system of banks and government monetary policies that provide support for productive efforts and realize great profits for doing so. This cost is what the real driving force behind inflation stems from. The banks dial up and dial down the availability of credit through interest rates and create business cycles that allow them to take advantage of market corrections using their own internal investment capital. Strangely that investment capital is just like all others in that it was brought into existence not as a hard currency but instead as an interest bearing debt in the form of credit. Central banking, the fractional reserve system have more absolute control over business than even the owners of the productive capacity because the supply of credit determines the levels of production and therefore the profits and profit margins available to the owners of industries. The government has left the playing field in real monetary terms because literally 90 percent of the worlds money supply is "credit" not the so called hard currencies issued by governments.

The real issue here is far more complex than most of us are willing to believe.

[ToadBrother]

The economy will go into a recession and the price of oil will drop as demand eases. Eventually high oil prices will make the transition economically viable but we are much better off waiting until that happens because everyone would be in the same boat. Increasing our energy costs today while our competitors like Chinese do nothing will simply cost us jobs and income.

We're never going to outcompete China. That was evident 150 years ago when the first mass-produced cheap consumer goods started to come into Western ports. Your argument might have made sense thirty or forty years ago when the Industrialized World was still basing a large portion of its economic output on manufacturing, but we began offshoring that to Asia a loooooong time ago, to the point where probably the great industrial city, Detroit, has shrunk down to a shadow of its former self.

So I fail to see how China is much of an argument. If we were worried about jobs and income moving to China, we should have been working on that in the 1970s, when China Inc. really did start vomiting out huge amounts of manufactured goods.

[Riverwind]

We're never going to outcompete China.

And your argument is we should speed up our self destruction adopting economically suicidal policies? The way to deal with such competition is to focus on our competitive advanages and the oil sands is one huge competitive advange for us. If companies in Canada can figure out how to turn clean energy into a money maker then they should be able to that in addition to the oil sands - not instead of. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

And your argument is we should speed up our self destruction adopting economically suicidal policies? The way to deal with such competition is to focus on our competitive advanages and the oil sands is one huge competitive advange for us. If companies in Canada can figure out how to turn clean energy into a money maker then they should be able to that in addition to the oil sands - not instead of.

From what I can tell, China's trying to push for us to drop the oil sands in its lap.

We're not going to out compete China, ever. However, China is not immune either and there's already some evidence that China is looking far down the road to when the costs of fossil fuels and the economic degradation that goes along with them will reach a point where no one will tolerate.

But China is a convenient scapegoat for energy companies to try to justify current practices, even as they look to sell far larger amounts to China. With Alberta's proven reserves, one would think Canada has a rather enormous amount of power over China's behavior. But I suspect you're of the "we want our cake and eat it too", as in, you'll condemn China, and yet happily feed their need for fossil fuels, but cyclically blame their behavior for why we shouldn't be moving from fossil fuels.

[Riverwind]

From what I can tell, China's trying to push for us to drop the oil sands in its lap.

Yep. They hope to do that by convincing the "useful idiots" in this country to sign up for a deal that hobbles our industry and transfers massive amounts of wealth to China and other developing countries who will continue emit with impunity.

We're not going to out compete China, ever. However, China is not immune either and there's already some evidence that China is looking far down the road to when the costs of fossil fuels and the economic degradation that goes along with them will reach a point where no one will tolerate.

China has its priorities right: it will worry about growth first and look for ways to improve the environment along the way. It will not, under any conditions, sacrifice growth for environmental causes.

With Alberta's proven reserves, one would think Canada has a rather enormous amount of power over China's behavior.

Our clout is being undermined by people who think we have some obligation to pay china for privilege of digging up our oil sands.

The bottom line: the oil sands bring a lot money into this country today. No sane person would give this up for a fairy tale about clean energy. The people who believe the alternatives can work should prove it before there is any talk of 'phasing out' the oil sands.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

The bottom line: the oil sands bring a lot money into this country today. No sane person would give this up for a fairy tale about clean energy. The people who believe the alternatives can work should prove it before there is any talk of 'phasing out' the oil sands.

The bottom line is if we don't start investing today, we're going to be in rather large trouble by the middle of the century.

[Riverwind]

The bottom line is if we don't start investing today, we're going to be in rather large trouble by the middle of the century.

Where have I said I am against investing in alternatives? I am only opposed to efforts to stop the use of fossil fuels before those alternatives have been shown to be economically viable.

[ToadBrother]

Where have I said I am against investing in alternatives? I am only opposed to efforts to stop the use of fossil fuels before those alternatives have been shown to be economically viable.

But if pressure of some form isn't applied, the market will do what it always does, and take the path of least resistance.

I'd be curious, what steps would you take and what time line (assuming we hit peak oil some time in the next fifty years, but if you like extend that to the number you feel is more reliable)?

[Riverwind]

But if pressure of some form isn't applied, the market will do what it always does, and take the path of least resistance.

Your argument cuts both ways. Artificially increasing the cost of energy in Canada will not trigger innovation if it is cheaper to shutdown and move somewhere else. The cost differential between fossil fuels and renewables is simply too large to have any other outcome. We need to focus first on R&D to bring the cost of renewables down.

I'd be curious, what steps would you take and what time line (assuming we hit peak oil some time in the next fifty years, but if you like extend that to the number you feel is more reliable)?

Peak oil is a long way off because oil can be produced from coal and we have a lot of coal. However, the price of oil will continue to increase and each time it jumps we will see a move to more efficient vehicles and hybrids. At some point, we will see natural gas become a viable fuel for vehicles (we have a lot of that). Pure electrics will play a small role because there is no good solution to the 'what happens if the battery dies and I am far from an outlet' problem. Biodiesel not large scale option with the currently available processes. 50 years from now vehicles will be powered by a mix of fuels - including oil. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

Your argument cuts both ways. Artificially increasing the cost of energy in Canada will not trigger innovation if it is cheaper to shutdown and move somewhere else. The cost differential between fossil fuels and renewables is simply too large to have any other outcome. We need to focus first on R&D to bring the cost of renewables down.

So the core of your message is there is in fact no solution in the short term. That we shall continue to dump large amounts of money and resources into fossil fuel extraction, refining and production, wasting one of the most valuable hydrocarbons on the planet in heat engines of various kinds, until we've used so much of it up that we've got a gun to our head.

Peak oil is a long way off because oil can be produced from coal and we have a lot of coal. However, the price of oil will continue to increase and each time it jumps we will see a move to more efficient vehicles and hybrids. At some point, we will see natural gas become a viable fuel for vehicles (we have a lot of that). Pure electrics will play a small role because there is no good solution to the 'what happens if the battery dies and I am far from an outlet' problem. Biodiesel not large scale option with the currently available processes.

So the only real problem with electric vehicles, in the mid-term, is a delivery issue. That seems in and of itself relatively easy to overcome. Certainly we have over a century of experience in electrical distribution.

As to coal, it's pretty expensive to produce oil from it, so I can't imagine it ever being any kind of a bridge to natural gas, and natural gas reserves aren't infinite either. As to natural gas, if you object to electricity because "what happens if the battery dies...", well, natural gas distribution is significantly less widespread than electricity, so why is it exactly that you would want to dump billions into making a larger natural gas network, when you could just simply increase the capacity of the current electrical grid? If need be (again, if you don't feel CO2 is a problem), then using natural gas to produce electricity seems a much more logical thing to do than dumping it straight into cars.

The core of the problem, from my perspective, is that you fail to recognize that the internal combustion engine is a very inefficient way to drive a small vehicle. It makes more sense with, say, large airplanes, trains or even trucks, because the amount of work, from both a physical sense and from an economic sense, from each barrel of oil is far greater than what we produce in our cars.

Edited December 17, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Riverwind]

As to coal, it's pretty expensive to produce oil from it, so I can't imagine it ever being any kind of a bridge to natural gas

I only mentioned coal to explain why peak oil won't happen. We will see a continual rise in price - but not a sudden catastrophe unless there is some geo-political meltdown.

As to natural gas, if you object to electricity because "what happens if the battery dies...", well, natural gas distribution is significantly less widespread than electricity

I guess it depends on where you are. Any place which already has natural gas heating has the network in place. Places without that infrastructure may be more inclined to go to electricity. My main point I see us moving to world where vehicles are powered by a mix of fuels and this will be driven largely by the market. The governments role will be limited to ensuring that regulatory barriers do not block technologies.

If need be (again, if you don't feel CO2 is a problem), then using natural gas to produce electricity seems a much more logical thing to do than dumping it straight into cars.

It depends on whether carmakers can come up with a reliable electric car suitable for a cold climate. It could happen - I just don't count on it. OTOH, reliable natural gas powered vehicles exist today. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

I only mentioned coal to explain why peak oil won't happen. We will see a continual rise in price - but not a sudden catastrophe unless there is some geo-political meltdown.

I guess it depends on where you are. Any place which already has natural gas heating has the network in place. Places without that infrastructure may be more inclined to go to electricity. My main point I see us moving to world where vehicles are powered by a mix of fuels and this will be driven largely by the market. The governments role will be limited to ensuring that regulatory barriers do not block technologies.

It depends on whether carmakers can come up with a reliable electric car suitable for a cold climate. It could happen - I just don't count on it. OTOH, reliable natural gas powered vehicles exist today.

I just gotta ask, how much stock do you own in energy companies. I mean, you will even invoke natural gas in automobiles over electric, despite clear deficiencies in the delivery of natural gas which electricity does not have. You seem to invoke coal as a solution, despite gaining usable amounts of oil from it costing exorbitant amounts of money with current technology and forseeable levels (I mean, this has been a serious area of investigation since the 1970s), while at the same time rejecting alternative energy sources out of hand as untried, too expensive, and too far away technologically.

It strikes me that you are in overwhelming favor of continuing to use hydrocarbons in heat engines for as long as possible.

[Riverwind]

I just gotta ask, how much stock do you own in energy companies.

That makes as much sense as asking you how much stock do you hold in renewable energy companies.

I mean, you will even invoke natural gas in automobiles over electric, despite clear deficiencies in the delivery of natural gas which electricity does not have.

The reliability of the vehicles will trump the efficiency of the fuel delivery mechanism. At this point in time I see no evidence that electric cars are ready to take over as the primary family vehicle. A best they would be a second vehicle for short trips. That could change but, as I said, planning must be based on technology that exists - not technology that might appear.

You seem to invoke coal as a solution, despite gaining usable amounts of oil from it costing exorbitant amounts of money with current technology and forseeable levels (I mean, this has been a serious area of investigation since the 1970s), while at the same time rejecting alternative energy sources out of hand as untried, too expensive, and too far away technologically.

To be clear. My hope is we never have to resort to coal-to-oil because coal would be much better used for producing electricity. However, in a pitch, it is an option.

As for renewables, it all comes down a simple formula: how much energy can be produced per dollar of investment. Wind and solar require a lot of investment for little power and that is not likely to change because most of the cost is in the huge grid+backup which is required to make renewables useful.

It strikes me that you are in overwhelming favor of continuing to use hydrocarbons in heat engines for as long as possible.

I am in favour of letting the market sort out what is the best solution. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

That makes as much sense as asking you how much stock do you hold in renewable energy companies.

I don't own stock in anything... fortunately.

The reliability of the vehicles will trump the efficiency of the fuel delivery mechanism. At this point in time I see no evidence that electric cars are ready to take over as the primary family vehicle. A best they would be a second vehicle for short trips. That could change but, as I said, planning must be based on technology that exists - not technology that might appear.

But that's precisely what you're doing. You're imagining a situation in which hydrocarbons can endlessly be used to produce cheap energy. The only cheap hydrocarbon out there, relatively speaking is coal, and if it's not burned correctly, it's an absolute disaster environmentally speaking. Oil is expensive, and most of Canada's proven reserves (the oil sands) require high oil prices to be economically feasible. You bitch and moan about China, and yet the only way Alberta's oil sands make any sense is if China and India are gobbling up as much oil as they can manage. In fact, China starting to turn to alternative energy sources would be an outright disaster for a fair chunk of Canada's oil production.

To be clear. My hope is we never have to resort to coal-to-oil because coal would be much better used for producing electricity. However, in a pitch, it is an option.

No better an option than electric cars. Like I said, you seem to concentrate overly much on the expenses involved in electric cars, but handwave away the very substantial costs involved in industrial capacity coal-to-oil. Coal as a source of oil was largely rejected three decades ago because it's energy intensive.

As for renewables, it all comes down a simple formula: how much energy can be produced per dollar of investment. Wind and solar require a lot of investment for little power and that is not likely to change because most of the cost is in the huge grid+backup which is required to make renewables useful.

In other words, the costs are up front. Yes, that's a problem, to the degree that any industrial process that requires a good deal of startup is expensive. But it has been done before. Railways, telegraph, telephone and electrical networks were all produced with large amounts of aid from governments, through cash, right of ways, long-term leases, etc. If the grid needs to be upgraded, if capacitance to even out varying power output from wind and tidal power, then let's do so. Governments helped build other kinds of infrastructure precisely because, despite the initial high costs, the long-term benefits were enormous. Why are sustainable energy sources some sort of pariah, but giving vast land grants to rail companies or effectively underwriting last mile electricity and communications networks good? I'm confused, please explain this to me?

I am in favour of letting the market sort out what is the best solution.

But markets tend only towards the best short-term solutions. Markets can make decisions that, in the short-term produce large profits, but over the medium and long term, can be disastrous. I more of the mind that we need slightly longer-term thinking than first quarter 2010.

Edited December 17, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Riverwind]

You're imagining a situation in which hydrocarbons can endlessly be used to produce cheap energy.

If things go as expected the human population will peak around 2050 and start to decline. This will mean our energy needs will decline and put less pressure on those limited hydrocarbon resources. There are more than enough hydrocarbons to get us over that hump. The trouble is there is not enough cheap oil.

In fact, China starting to turn to alternative energy sources would be an outright disaster for a fair chunk of Canada's oil production.

China is turning to every possible source of energy. It is investing in renewables, coal, nuclear even coal-to-oil. China just surpassed the US as the largest market for car sales. There is no chance of oil going down in price any time soon.

No better an option than electric cars.

Except for the batteries and all of the relatively rare metals that are need to make them. If you are worried about peak oil - what about peak indium or peak lithium. Here is a good chart to give an idea of all of the shortages we will be facing.

Here is a simple calculation based on lithium supplies:

Lithium ion batteries (the current favourite) are costed in energy terms at 2 kg of lithium per kwh of battery (specific energy). The PHEV (plug-in hydrid vehicle) is rated at 9 kwh and so each car would need 18 kg of lithium. Hence, 500 million PHEV's would require:

18 kg x 500 x 10*6 = 9 x 10*9 kg = 9 million tonnes of lithium.

The entire world reserve of lithium ( accounted in the form of lithium oxide, Li2O) is 10.74 million tonnes, which contains (worked at an abundance of 92.5% lithium-7 and the rest lithium-6):

2 x [(7 x .925) + (6 x .075)] x 10.74 x 10*6/2 x [(7 x .925) + (6 x .075)] + 16 = 4.98 x 10*6 tonnes; call it 5 million tonnes of lithium.

Obviously there is not enough!

Source. Now like oil supplies, lithium supplies will grow as demand grows (I believe the number used in the example is out of date) but you should see that the potential demand is of the same order of magnitude as the supplies.

When it comes to the building the grid I read one analysis that it would take 25,000 miles of copper transmission lines to supply 1/2 of california's *current* electricity consumption with renewables. Multiply that out for the entire world and you have another resource bottleneck.

Why are sustainable energy sources some sort of pariah, but giving vast land grants to rail companies or effectively underwriting last mile electricity and communications networks good? I'm confused, please explain this to me?

It is a matter of timeframes. If you wanted to talk about a 100 year plan to build out this infrastructure out of existing tax revenues then I could support it but in the meantime we need to expand our use of fossil fuels. If you want to talk about a plan to build it over 25 years while making existing energy sources prohibitively expensive then I see it as economic suicide. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

It is a matter of timeframes. If you wanted to talk about a 100 year plan to build out this infrastructure out of existing tax revenues then I could support it but in the meantime we need to expand our use of fossil fuels. If you want to talk about a plan to build it over 25 years while making existing energy sources prohibitively expensive then I see it as economic suicide.

But if you don't give the market a reason to move towards sustainable energy it won't. Throwing tax dollars at R&D with little hope that the markets will take the plunge doesn't seem like much of a recipe for results. I'd much prefer the government simply do what they did with the railways, electricity and telephones, and underwrite the process. It will costs lots and lots of money, of course, but then again, so do highways and bridges, and yet governments pay for directly or in some way underwrite them all the time. It worked for other things, and certainly over faster periods of time than 100 years. But once again, you essentially fall back to special pleading.

[Riverwind]

It worked for other things, and certainly over faster periods of time than 100 years.

It is not hard to calculate the cost of building out the required infrastructure. The cost is astronomical if done over 25 years. Stretch it out over 100 years and it is manageable but only if we continue to invest in and use fossil fuels. Here is one analysis that would put the cost of converting Canada renewables in 20 years at about $200 billion per year! That would consume the entire federal government budget.

That is why I say renewables are a pipe dream and fossil fuels will be necessary for a long time.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind