Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
And as far as faults go, it is established that Canada uses approximately 2.2-2.3 million barrels a day of oil. There are pretty standard proportions which come from a barrel of oil. You are right though, given the high level of economic activity, it is likely that Alberta uses more gasoline than the estimate I gave, and thus I was generous on the impact that this plant will make.
Those are averages. A barrel of oil produces approximately 160 litres of usable fuel. There is 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, but it produces 46 gallons of useable fuel. 46 Gallons works out to roughly 160 litres. The gasoline portion is the portion of a barrel of oil that is used for gasoline, the diesel is the diesel proportion, etc. (kerosene, jet fuel etc.). The average amount of gasoline that a barrel of oil produces is pretty standard, although I purposely used a low estimate. The percentage that I used for gasoline per barrel of oil takes into account all those other factors that you cite. This state of California website http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/wh...arrel_oil.html shows it at being approximately 25 gallons per barrel of oil, which would be about 95 litres per barrel of oil. I used 75 Litres because it is generally the accepted figure in the industry.
It is actually 1.6% when you factor in the amount of diesel that is produced from an average barrel of oil. It is indeed a subsidy when the government is spending 170 million dollars on it. Something should be abandoned when it costs to much money vis-a-vis the output, unless it shows incredible growth potential. Biodiesel does not show this, fuel cells and hybrid cars do show this potential, those are the alternative fuels that government should be focusing on. Governments focus on biodiesel because it is a disguised subsidy to farmers. When you are putting money into promoting biofuel, it naturally creates another market for farmers and thus the price of their commodities rises. That is simple economics. |
The main point of my objection wasn't your porportion of gasoline coming from a barrel of oil (I did mention it, but not as my main objection). The main objetion is your assumption that albertans use oil in the exact proporitons it comes out of the ground at, and this could very greatly affect your figure of 1.6%.
Regardless of what the actual number is, the fact remains that you seem to be opposed to this based on two factors
1) it will have a small impact
2) it is a subsidy to farmers
In respnse to 1.
Just because it has a small impact doesn't mean it warrents consideration. What do you expect, a magic bullet that will one day repalce 20% of gasoline used in the province? Small steps my friend, if this plant can become comercailly viable more like it will spring up and if we can get 10 or 20 of these plants then suddenly we've reduced our dependenc on oil by 15-30%.
In response to #2
Are farmers going to be paid by the government more for their conola due to this plant? I certainly haven't seen anything mentioning that. The subsidies the government is giving out is to the company that wants to build the plant and then buy the canola from the farmers (a product that as I understand it is not subsidised, and already in great demand). So the subsidy is to encourage the production of another fuel source, which is really no different than the royalty breaks companies get for producing from unconventional sources like the oil sands.
As I've said, I don't think using food sources for a fuel source is a good idea, but to say that you're opposed becasue it will only make a small impact, and that it is only a subsidy to farmers is 50% shortshighted, and 50% incorrect.