Phasing Out Fossil Fuels

[CaptainYooh]

I am surprised there was no discussion about this agreement.

The G7 leading industrial nations have agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century...

If this does happen, investment in Alberta energy industry will start shrinking and the economic recovery everyone is anticipating soon may not occur at all. This could mean prolonged period of negative in-migration and, in short, a recession. Being skeptical is OK; we all know how much respect did Kyoto accord receive in the past. Also, it is clear that countries without strong resource base raise the rhetoric and push for this agreement harder as they stand to benefit more from internationally supported investment in non-fossil fuel development.

Still, the huge questions are starting to pop-up more and more:

1. How do you see Alberta surviving the loss of its primary economic driver?
2. Do you see Alberta developing into something other than resource-based economy? How? Why did it not happen so far?
3. Is it reasonable to expect our O&G industry to transform naturally into chemical/pharmaceutical etc. industry utilizing the existing hard assets and technological bases?
4. On a personal level, many of us are somehow dependent on the success of the Alberta energy industry in one way or another. Do you see yourself and your family moving out of Alberta, if it becomes a stagnating economy?

This could be an interesting discussion if we steer clear of the validity of human impact on climate change arguments and general bitching.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I am surprised there was no discussion about this agreement.

If this does happen, investment in Alberta energy industry will start shrinking and the economic recovery everyone is anticipating soon may not occur at all. This could mean prolonged period of negative in-migration and, in short, a recession. Being skeptical is OK; we all know how much respect did Kyoto accord receive in the past. Also, it is clear that countries without strong resource base raise the rhetoric and push for this agreement harder as they stand to benefit more from internationally supported investment in non-fossil fuel development.

Still, the huge questions are starting to pop-up more and more:

1. How do you see Alberta surviving the loss of its primary economic driver?
2. Do you see Alberta developing into something other than resource-based economy? How? Why did it not happen so far?
3. Is it reasonable to expect our O&G industry to transform naturally into chemical/pharmaceutical etc. industry utilizing the existing hard assets and technological bases?
4. On a personal level, many of us are somehow dependent on the success of the Alberta energy industry in one way or another. Do you see yourself and your family moving out of Alberta, if it becomes a stagnating economy?

This could be an interesting discussion if we steer clear of the validity of human impact on climate change arguments and general bitching.

It's 85 years man. 85 years.

To put this in perspective, 85 years ago was 1930. In 1930, there was the Turner Valley oil discovery, about 15 years old, and that was about it. Leduc wasn't discovered. Coal was the primary extractive industry in this province. The United Farmers had just been elected again, and the province was in the midst of the depression.

In 85 years, we have no idea what the world is going to look like. But I can tell you with certainty it won't look like it does today.

[Looch City]

Hmmm 85 years in the future....perhaps by then fossil fuels will be primarily used for intergalactic travel and galaxy-wide military conflicts.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It's 85 years man. 85 years...

Understood. It's the notion, though. There is way more fossil-based energy than 85 years. And if the target is set, the finality of it also sets in. This will have an effect, undoubtedly.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It makes for a nice headline, but "phasing" into what, exactly? Hard to place into context, when an associated headline read:

Five G7 nations increased their coal use over a five-year period, research shows
Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and France burned more coal between 2009 and 2013 and demanded poor countries slash their carbon emissions

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It's 85 years man. 85 years.

Yeah, this declaration is the equivalent of a decree in 1913 by the United States, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the French Third Republic, the German Empire, Imperial Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire about something that will happen in 2000.

Only the US remains substantially the same.

And even if the G7 does put in the effort to get per capita energy usage and CO2 emissions down to the levels of the most efficient European countries today, you still have the rise of China, India and the rest of developing world's per capita energy usage rising from their current low.

And if the target is set, the finality of it also sets in. This will have an effect, undoubtedly.

Treaties can always be cancelled or ignored; with sovereign nations, you can't really force them to do anything they don't want to without invasion.

[WCan_Kid]

We use oil for a lot more than just a fuel source. Phasing out fossil fuels will have an impact on pricing, but oil's not going away any time soon.

[CaptainYooh]

Guys, we can argue all day long if this agreement is going to transpire into something real or not. As I said in the OP, it's totally OK to be skeptical about it. After all, it is very difficult for all of us to imagine life without oil here.

That's not the idea though. I was hoping we could try discussing/forecasting what would/could Alberta do IF this does happen.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

That's fair.
I would say move out, but I don't know how to ride a horse. I'd be screwed.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Understood. It's the notion, though. There is way more fossil-based energy than 85 years. And if the target is set, the finality of it also sets in. This will have an effect, undoubtedly.

Why Chretien signed off on the Kyoto reductions, and then did absolutely nothing to meet them and decided to leave it to the next government.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Guys, we can argue all day long if this agreement is going to transpire into something real or not. As I said in the OP, it's totally OK to be skeptical about it. After all, it is very difficult for all of us to imagine life without oil here.

That's not the idea though. I was hoping we could try discussing/forecasting what would/could Alberta do IF this does happen.

We should start investing in the dilithium crystal infrastructure that will be needed immediately!

Then we can be the global leader in warp travel!

[Frequitude]

Invest in "batteries". And by batteries I mean an electrical energy storage device. It doesn't have to be some lead acid box. An example would be a hydrogen electrolysis / fuel cell combo.

The single greatest characteristic of fossil fuels is that they are a very transportable source of dense energy that can easily be transformed into other forms of energy using well established technologies. e.g. internal combustion engine -> kinetic energy, boilers+turbines -> electrical energy, fire -> thermal energy.

The same technologies exist for transforming electrical energy (electric motor -> kinetic energy, wire -> electrical energy, resistors -> thermal energy). The only thing that's missing is the extremely transportable and dense part.

Nail the battery and you eventually kill fossil fuels.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Invest in "batteries". And by batteries I mean an electrical energy storage device. It doesn't have to be some lead acid box. An example would be a hydrogen electrolysis / fuel cell combo.

The single greatest characteristic of fossil fuels is that they are a very transportable source of dense energy that can easily be transformed into other forms of energy using well established technologies. e.g. internal combustion engine -> kinetic energy, boilers+turbines -> electrical energy, fire -> thermal energy.

The same technologies exist for transforming electrical energy (electric motor -> kinetic energy, wire -> electrical energy, resistors -> thermal energy). The only thing that's missing is the extremely transportable and dense part.

Nail the battery and you eventually kill fossil fuels.

Well put. I hadn't thought of that

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Whale oil used to be a primary industrial fuel and lubricant. Someone invents kerosene and 30 years later whaling fleets are gone.

A battery breakthrough (tripling of energy density) could accomplish the same.

My opinion is that given our existing capabilities...Alberta could be a world leader in geothermal technology and regulations.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

...
My opinion is that given our existing capabilities...Alberta could be a world leader in geothermal technology and regulations.

Geothermal energy is local by nature; it's not exportable easily (unless you invest in good batteries ). At best, it provides one more alternative to fossil fuel usage (just like solar etc.) but it would not save Alberta economy.

... and how do you export regulations???

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Geothermal is as local as wind, solar, hydro etc and can provide a constant source of power. Is it in a fuel form? No. Nothing except hydrocarbons are like that.

The interesting thing about geothermal is that most of the cost is involved in prospecting and drilling holes. Well. We have been drilling holes everywhere for decades.

Institutions aren't exportable (unless you count invasion) but are crucial for creating value for natural resources. They can be copied by other regions though.

[nik-]

I'm going to start making promises for when my children'a children are long dead.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I'm of the opinion that the market will 'solve' this long before regulation will. And unfortunately this could mean Alberta's current business model could be obsolete long before 85 years passes.

[GGG]

Oil sands projects are about 25-30 years long. So we still have 50 years before this Type of declaration would affect Alberta.

Batteries becoming economical is one possibility, The other alternative is a carbon capturing technology becomes affordable to make everything zero emission.

Either way it will be market driven not treaty driven.

[karl262]

In 85 years Alberta wont even exist anymore. Most of it will just be a small part of the glorious Peoples Republic of America.