Oil and The Future of Canada

[Wilber]

This is the latest variation on psuedo-scientific scams related to energy production.

This link on site that promotes the use of thorium as an energy source explains:

http://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/

I remember the 100 MPG carburetor well. Met people who actually believed it. Stick the sucker on a 1L four banger or a 7L big block, doesn't matter. Killed by an oil company conspiracy don't you know. Of course they really had no clue how a carburetor actually worked or what it did, let alone how an internal combustion engine turns liquid fuel into mechanical energy.

[TimG]

Yes, but the predominant use of long-chain hydrocarbons is for energy. As to other uses, there are other ways to produce plastics. I'll wager by 2100, we'll be using bacteria and algae for a lot of industrial processes.

I don't see why. If we stop burning the stuff there will be centuries of fossil fuel reserves available. Using oil as a starting point for any petrochemical process reduces the time and energy required to create the end product. I think it would be unlikely that any algae based process could compete.

[waldo]

If we stop burning the stuff there will be centuries of fossil fuel reserves available.

June 2000 - Saudi Oil Minister predicts the 'age of oil' ending by 2030:

“Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.”

Goldman Sachs recently predicted $20 oil given reduced consumption, the continued refusal by OPEC nations to reduce production, the challenging increased production level by the U.S., the ending of sanctions against Iran, etc.. ... every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that stays in the ground!

[PIK]

Not even close to two hundred, and not even until 2060.

If you hold stock in an oil company or fossil fuel extraction company, I would think about divesting yourself in about ten to fifteen years.

How will anyone live with out it toad. It is not all about fuel, it is in everything.

[msj]

With solar - not wind as you suggested. Heat waves usually mean wind production drops. And heat waves don't mean more solar power (the sun does not get brighter). If solar is meeting the peaking demand during a heat wave that means it is producing a lot of power which has to be dumped on days when demand is not high. And if the peak comes at other times (e.g. due to cold nights) then solar is useless so you still need to build the natural gas generators.

Heat waves means lots of A/C which requires lots of grid power. Natural gas plants often kick in but no more thanks to solar power which generates power just fine.

[TimG]

Heat waves means lots of A/C which requires lots of grid power. Natural gas plants often kick in but no more thanks to solar power which generates power just fine.

You missed my point entirely. If there is enough solar power to provide peaking load during heat waves then there will too much that has to be dumped if there is no heat wave because solar panels don't produce more just because it is hot out (number of hours of sunshine are what matters and it can be sunny and cold or cloudy and hot).

[ToadBrother]

How will anyone live with out it toad. It is not all about fuel, it is in everything.

It is right now. In a hundred years I suspect we'll be growing most of our plastics.

[hitops]

Goldman Sachs has come out and said 20$ oil is a sane possibility and that tanked oil is very sane future.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/goldman-sachs-oil-1.3223993

Does this effect who Canadians should vote for?

Why would this affect who you vote for? Canada's politicians do not control world commodity supply and demand. In fact almost no countries can claim do to that. Even OPEC has lost its previous influence.

[TimG]

It is right now. In a hundred years I suspect we'll be growing most of our plastics.

We can grow them today. The trouble is it costs more because all of the energy that one gets for free in the oil has to be added to the system. This increases cost and processing time. As long as there is oil available it will continue to be more economic to use oil rather than consume more energy in order to use plant matter.

[msj]

You missed my point entirely. If there is enough solar power to provide peaking load during heat waves then there will too much that has to be dumped if there is no heat wave because solar panels don't produce more just because it is hot out (number of hours of sunshine are what matters and it can be sunny and cold or cloudy and hot).

Whoop dee do.

If S/W can become 12% of the supplied grid power in the UK as of Q2 of 2015 then it will eventually become 20+% in the US. Perhaps even 30%.

Throw in natural gas and hydro (which can be stored) and we will eventually have a system that is decarbonized to a huge extent compared to even just a few years ago.

That will have a huge effect on coal and even oil.

It is already having a big effect and it's a pity oil prices weren't higher as that would encourage a quicker conversion from the fossil industry.

Edited October 5, 2015 by msj

[ToadBrother]

We can grow them today. The trouble is it costs more because all of the energy that one gets for free in the oil has to be added to the system. This increases cost and processing time. As long as there is oil available it will continue to be more economic to use oil rather than consume more energy in order to use plant matter.

Oil isn't free energy. What a ludicrous statement.

And what is expensive today is often only a fraction of that initial cost in a few years.

It's hard to imagine anyone seriously thinking oil is a long term energy solution. It's almost as if oil is a religious position.

But whatever you think of it, oil is not cheap.

[TimG]

If S/W can become 12% of the supplied grid power in the UK as of Q2 of 2015 then it will eventually become 20+% in the US. Perhaps even 30%.

Not a chance. The unpredictability of renewables makes them unsuited for grid power applications. If one is determined one can take advantage of the existing redundancy in the grid and absorb about 10-15% but beyond that costs of integrating renewables increase dramatically.

Throw in natural gas and hydro (which can be stored) and we will eventually have a system that is decarbonized to a huge extent compared to even just a few years ago.

Any progress will be entirely due to a switch from coal to gas. Hydro is more or less maxed in North America so there is little new capacity that can be added.

It is already bag for an effect and it's a pity oil prices weren't higher as that would encourage a quicker conversion from the fossil industry.

The market ensures that as demand drops the price drops which helps increase the demand. It is unlikely that people will want to put up with the inconveniences of an electric car if they can get a hybrid and cheap gas. Edited October 5, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Oil isn't free energy. What a ludicrous statement.

It takes a lot fewer resources to produce a petrochemical from oil than any other process.

It's hard to imagine anyone seriously thinking oil is a long term energy solution. It's almost as if oil is a religious position.

I find it hard to imagine that someone thinks that a relatively small amount of oil should not be used for petrochemical applications even if transportation has been electrified. It's almost as if not using oil is a religious position.

But whatever you think of it, oil is not cheap.

It is cheaper than supplying huge quantities of nitrogen and water to industrial bio-reactors in order to replicate the chemical compounds that are already present in the oil.

[ToadBrother]

It takes a lot fewer resources to produce a petrochemical from oil than any other process.

Until you start factoring in the actual costs of using fossil fuels.

I find it hard to imagine that someone thinks that a relatively small amount of oil should not be used for petrochemical applications even if transportation has been electrified. It's almost as if not using oil is a religious position.

If you can use processes that ultimately require less transportation costs, then why would you pay for oil?

It is cheaper than supplying huge quantities of nitrogen and water to industrial bio-reactors in order to replicate the chemical compounds that are already present in the oil.

You are aware that sooner or later fossil fuels are going to be priced based on CO2 emissions. YOu can deny that is right, you can insist that increasing the amount of energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere is just wonderful, and that the oceans love alter Ph levels, but sooner or later all governments are going to start putting prices on CO2 emissions.

Fossil fuels' days are numbered. Whether it's ten years from now or twenty years from now, this isn't going to persist thru mid-century.

[hitops]

Oil isn't free energy. What a ludicrous statement.

And what is expensive today is often only a fraction of that initial cost in a few years.

It's hard to imagine anyone seriously thinking oil is a long term energy solution. It's almost as if oil is a religious position.

But whatever you think of it, oil is not cheap.

While not free, it is orders of magnitude more efficient to extract and use compared to alternatives. You get something like 30-40 units of energy for every 1 unit you have to put in to extract and refine it.

Nothing else comes remotely close at this time. Most do not break even on the energy in vs out scale.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Fossil fuels' days are numbered. Whether it's ten years from now or twenty years from now, this isn't going to persist thru mid-century.

Really ? Since it is already 2015, please explain how the many forms of fossil fueled engines will be systematically replaced by "mid-century", when it takes decades to design, develop, and produce such things. Please include all forms of land, sea, and air transportation.

[hitops]

Whoop dee do.

If S/W can become 12% of the supplied grid power in the UK as of Q2 of 2015 then it will eventually become 20+% in the US. Perhaps even 30%.

Throw in natural gas and hydro (which can be stored) and we will eventually have a system that is decarbonized to a huge extent compared to even just a few years ago.

That will have a huge effect on coal and even oil.

It is already having a big effect and it's a pity oil prices weren't higher as that would encourage a quicker conversion from the fossil industry.

You are only considering how much % power generation comes from different sources. You are not considering how expensive it is to create and access those sources. It is far more expensive to create power by non-oil means. Some evaluations are not even sure if it breaks even. It may actually make oil cost more to use wind and solar, because of the inputs of oil-derived energy that you need to build, maintain and subsidize the wind and solar operations.

If want to get to a real world, realistic view of the feasibility of different sources, the percentages should be tabulated in the form of cost vs output per unit of energy per source. That 12% power from W/S is not the same as if the 12% came from oil, in terms of value to the economy, because the initial cost to the economy for the W/S power is far higher.

It is not simply the large capital costs of manufacturing, installing and maintaining a panel or wind turbine. It is the very expensive and complex additional infrastructure needed to store and distribute the energy, and switching/bleeding mechanisms and retooling that needs to be done to the grid infrastructure to accommodate unpredictable, uncontrollable variations in output from those sources. Oil does not have those needs, you just burn it when you need it. If it is really windy, you have to allow more loss to friction (can't let turbines spin to fast for technical reasons) or simply do not collect the full potential of the turbine which is lost potential energy. If you have too much oil, you don't have to allow the pump to spill oil until you need it - you just stop pumping and save for later, or you collect it in storage. You can't save the windy day for later, nor can you store the wind until you need it. You can try to store the energy from the wind, but it is really inefficient.

That is why although we have understood you can use nature to generate power from wind or water for hundreds of years, and we have had batteries for 50 or more, oil is still totally dominant. Like Elon Musk said "the problem with batteries......is that they suck"

Edited October 5, 2015 by hitops

[TimG]

If you can use processes that ultimately require less transportation costs, then why would you pay for oil?

Because it is cheaper. Because algae production on that scale is going have all kinds of downsides that will likely be as bad

You are aware that sooner or later fossil fuels are going to be priced based on CO2 emissions.

Depends. If we get to 2030 and the climate models are still failing to predict the temperature rise it is safe to assume that your ilk will tossed in the trash bin of history. In any case, estimates I have seen of the 'social cost of carbon' suggest that we are already collecting way more than the alleged harms so your argument is moot. Of course, you don't really care about determining the true cost of CO2 - you just want an excuse to tax energy sources out of existence that offend your religion. Edited October 5, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

Not a chance. The unpredictability of renewables makes them unsuited for grid power applications. If one is determined one can take advantage of the existing redundancy in the grid and absorb about 10-15% but beyond that costs of integrating renewables increase dramatically.

as a representative example - from the National Renewable Energy Lab of the U.S. Department of Energy: Western Wind and Solar Integration Study --- re: Western Interconnection

I've posted in the past about adjusting operational practices to help manage increased renewable penetration... the study examined the benefits/challenges of integrating up to 35% wind and solar energy penetration into the grid by 2017... technically feasible without the need for extensive additional infrastructure; however, does require key changes to current operational practice... in regards this study, operationally possible to accommodate 30% wind and 5% solar energy penetration. Additionally, the study found that a 27% wind and solar energy penetration across the Western Interconnection decreases fuel and emissions costs by 40% and carbon emissions by 25%–45%, depending on the future price of natural gas.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

As in the case of the "Leap Manifesto", it looks like the future of oil in Canada can only be understood in terms of what is already happening in the United States. Perhaps this is part of the problem ?

[hitops]

Until you start factoring in the actual costs of using fossil fuels.

Those costs are incredibly low compared to what you get in return.

If you can use processes that ultimately require less transportation costs, then why would you pay for oil?

Because the additional costs to purchase energy from those sources outweigh the savings of not having to transport them, by orders of magnitude.

You are aware that sooner or later fossil fuels are going to be priced based on CO2 emissions. YOu can deny that is right, you can insist that increasing the amount of energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere is just wonderful, and that the oceans love alter Ph levels, but sooner or later all governments are going to start putting prices on CO2 emissions.

If that occurs, it will be a political decision. They would have to raise the cost of burning fossil fuels by an incredibly large amount to make using oil a bad economic decision.

Fossil fuels' days are numbered. Whether it's ten years from now or twenty years from now, this isn't going to persist thru mid-century.

That story has been told before. 'Peak Oil' comes to mind. Remember how it was all going downhill after the 70's? It was so obvious, the scientists, the economists and the ivory tower told us so. Now there is more oil than anyone knows what to do with.

Edited October 5, 2015 by hitops

[msj]

Not a chance. The unpredictability of renewables makes them unsuited for grid power applications. If one is determined one can take advantage of the existing redundancy in the grid and absorb about 10-15% but beyond that costs of integrating renewables increase dramatically. Any progress will be entirely due to a switch from coal to gas. Hydro is more or less maxed in North America so there is little new capacity that can be added.

The above is hilarious for the following reasons:

1) In the UK coal has gone down from 21% to 15% while natural gas has held steady at 23%.

S/W went from 6% to 12%.

So S/W is already taking share.

2) In BC we are looking at the site c dam in the north.

3) China is likely hitting peak hydro over the next few years and we will likely see growth there from S/W rather than coal or oil.

4) Add it all up and coal's days are done and oil will be in the same place within 25 years.

[TimG]

S/W went from 6% to 12%.

As I said, you can add 10-15% by exploiting the existing grid redundancy - going above that will impose huge costs.

2) In BC we are looking at the site c dam in the north.

Assuming it gets built and a 1GW facility it is nothing but a rounding error in terms of north american consumption. There are not that many sites left to use in North America as well.

3) China is likely hitting peak hydro over the next few years and we will likely see growth there from S/W rather than coal or oil.

Nope. Despite massive investment solar/wind are well under 10% and will stay there for the foreseeable future.

4) Add it all up and coal's days are done and oil will be in the same place within 25 years.

China, India and Africa will continue to build coal plants for many decades to come. Oil is not going anywhere until a viable replacement arrives. So far we have some things that show potential for passenger cars but when it comes planes, ships or trucks oil will continue to rule. Edited October 5, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

As I said, you can add 10-15% by exploiting the existing grid redundancy - going above that will impose huge costs.

so you keep saying... without substantiating your repeated claim. I just presented the results of a representative example - from the National Renewable Energy Lab of the U.S. Department of Energy: Western Wind and Solar Integration Study --- re: Western Interconnection, where the study examined the benefits/challenges of integrating up to 35% wind and solar energy penetration into the grid by 2017... technically feasible without the need for extensive additional infrastructure; however, does require key changes to current operational practice... in regards this study, operationally possible to accommodate 30% wind and 5% solar energy penetration.

Germany's renewables are presently providing 28% of total generated power to the country and is on track to meet the 35% by 2020 target. Today, Germany’s power grid ranks among the most reliable in the world despite the rapid increase in renewable energy. Its System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), which measures the average yearly downtime per customer, was 15.91 minutes in 2012, meaning it suffered a quarter of the disruption of the UK grid... Germany has not incurred significant grid integration costs due to the increase in renewable energy; again, to-date, grid management practices have been relied upon to deal with the rapidly growing wind power capacity:

but yes, most certainly, Germany is looking at future grid expansion requirements to deal with the ever increasing decentralised, fluctuating supply... grid extensions needed to bring electricity from the rapidly growing wind power capacity in northern Germany to the country's industrial south.

you've now been presented with 2 examples, one theoretical study based and the other a practical real-world deployment... ~30-35% renewable penetration without the need for significant cost impact on the existing grid infrastructure. All you've done is continue to state the same 10-15% figure - without substantiation.

[TimG]

Germany's renewables are presently providing 28% of total generated power[/b] to the country and is on track to meet the 35% by 2020 target.

Except this number is a fiction because Germany's grid is linked with the rest of Europe. To do the calculation correctly you have to include all areas where Germany can dump excess power and if you did that you would get a much lower percentage (most likely below 10% even if most of the installations are within Denmark and Germany). In any case, Germany also is among the highest power prices in the world which proves that renewable don't come cheap. Edited October 6, 2015 by TimG