This is one of the things Neil deGrasse Tyson harps on all the time, the fact we used to have leaders who wanted to inspire the people to a goal, to dream, to mobilize and inspire. Now we live in an age where so many are ready to dump on any attempts to do anything of the like. Could you imagine if this JFK speech was made today, what Fox news would say, what social media would say?
That was "we are going to send someone to the moon by the end of this decade" with a Space Program that was already in place and had already sent a man into space.
It was not "we're going to stop using something in 85 years" which is a statement that the people making know they will have zero accountability for.
So with the whole Alberta reliance oil right now and an 85 year life span remaining for our biggest export, what is being done now with the oil profits to revinest it? The province really needs to put the money aside to diversify us and fast. Other countries are already well ahead of us and if investment isn't made now, we'll be playing catch up or we'll be irrelevant in the long term future.
Germany, for example, is already at 50%+ renewables w/ an additional 20%+ nuclear... what are we at?? Plants take a long long time to approve and build. Alberta is 85%+ coal and natural gas. We are already behind.
Any "call to action" made by politicians who won't even be alive when their "promises" would come to fruition should never be taken seriously.
In 20 years ago there was no internet. Think about how much the world has changed in just 20 years. 85 years from now the world will be a vastly different place. I seriously doubt fossil fuels will be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
So with the whole Alberta reliance oil right now and an 85 year life span remaining for our biggest export, what is being done now with the oil profits to revinest it? The province really needs to put the money aside to diversify us and fast. Other countries are already well ahead of us and if investment isn't made now, we'll be playing catch up or we'll be irrelevant in the long term future.
Germany, for example, is already at 50%+ renewables w/ an additional 20%+ nuclear... what are we at?? Plants take a long long time to approve and build. Alberta is 85%+ coal and natural gas. We are already behind.
How dare you mention diversifying away from O&G!?
The good times will never end! *la la la la la*
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
Any "call to action" made by politicians who won't even be alive when their "promises" would come to fruition should never be taken seriously.
In 20 years ago there was no internet. Think about how much the world has changed in just 20 years. 85 years from now the world will be a vastly different place. I seriously doubt fossil fuels will be a problem.
Difference is though the internet, websites can be created quickly and cheaply to generate huge amounts of money. Power plants require heavy investment, take a long time to build (3-7 years), and are usually built to last 50+ years with not as quick return on investment. Definitely though they are required.
Difference is though the internet, websites can be created quickly and cheaply to generate huge amounts of money. Power plants require heavy investment, take a long time to build (3-7 years), and are usually built to last 50+ years with not as quick return on investment. Definitely though they are required.
Nothing short of small scale compact Thorium would provide the energy density, small footprint and would be classified as cheap, nor theoretically feasible, in the next 10 years. We are neither a leader in alternative energy production or research, and without fast and immediate funding for that type of research, we will not be. You can't just throw money at field and hope to become an expert in it overnight.
What I was trying to point out is we have the biggest gap to make up out of any other province in Canada to move towards nuclear/renewable. Without heavy investment now, we will be the one holding the biggest bag of debt from the transition. We cannot rely on some mythical, as yet undiscovered technology... rather we'll need to phase this in over time so the costs can be recouped. Sure, some day we may harness the power of unicorns that shiet rainbows for our interwebz, but that can't be relied on.
Hopefully the political will is there in our province to start moving things rather than the short sighted drinking from a declining gravy train as the world moves towards alternative energies.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
Wait, I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying. I'm just noting that we can't really comment on how power generation is going to be like in 80+ years.
The first national grids were just starting to come online 80 years ago.
Alberta/Calgary needs to start preparing for transition of some sort. One thing we know for sure is the world will always need energy in one form or another. If it's electricity that fuels many things including private transportation (about 40% the use of oil if I recall correctly) we have to hope our Oil and Gas companies begin to move into production, distribution, storage, investment of electricity and related products/services.
A lot of citizens, governments, institutions, investors, innovators, etc are very concerned about climate change, so there's seems to be a major drive toward innovation to help mitigate and solve this global problem. Will our companies like Cenovus, CNRL, Encana, Suncor, etc etc be a part of driving that innovation, or are they going to dig in and put all their eggs in the basket of products that others are trying to reduce demand for through technological innovation?
What if there are major advancements in battery technology, making an electric automobiles economically viable to the broad public over the next two decades? It won't eliminate the internal combustion engine overnight, but even if it puts a big dent in the oil demand curve in the next 20 years, that will drastically affect the price of oil and the viability of higher cost extraction that we have here in Alberta. What do we do then?
In my mind, we have to maintain our position as energy power, but find ways to motivate our companies to help lead this (seemingly likely) transition this century. Hey, be a big player globally in replacing coal to another source to produce electricity and that will keep us viable for ever.
it is energy intensive but I heard news report that the US navy is looking at how to implement it on their nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Same news report mentioned it was something like $1.50 a litre to produce in the lab.
Fact is that the US armed services are taking serious looks at alternative energy. Apparently they figured out that many of the Irag casualties involved re-supply conveys... things like fuel to the camps. So the hot "black budget" projects is alternative energy.
add in something lofty like fusion and there may be cheap energy to make this work.
In a foreseeable future, I can see a reduction of liquid fossil fuel use. The market will change and Alberta will need to be ready. (does anyone recall how General Motors failed to see the market changes back in 2008?)
Last edited by para transit fellow; 06-11-2015 at 01:54 PM.
Reason: added news report info
Alberta/Calgary needs to start preparing for transition of some sort. One thing we know for sure is the world will always need energy in one form or another. If it's electricity that fuels many things including private transportation (about 40% the use of oil if I recall correctly) we have to hope our Oil and Gas companies begin to move into production, distribution, storage, investment of electricity and related products/services.
A lot of citizens, governments, institutions, investors, innovators, etc are very concerned about climate change, so there's seems to be a major drive toward innovation to help mitigate and solve this global problem. Will our companies like Cenovus, CNRL, Encana, Suncor, etc etc be a part of driving that innovation, or are they going to dig in and put all their eggs in the basket of products that others are trying to reduce demand for through technological innovation?
What if there are major advancements in battery technology, making an electric automobiles economically viable to the broad public over the next two decades? It won't eliminate the internal combustion engine overnight, but even if it puts a big dent in the oil demand curve in the next 20 years, that will drastically affect the price of oil and the viability of higher cost extraction that we have here in Alberta. What do we do then?
In my mind, we have to maintain our position as energy power, but find ways to motivate our companies to help lead this (seemingly likely) transition this century. Hey, be a big player globally in replacing coal to another source to produce electricity and that will keep us viable for ever.
Incentives like these need to be created either by tax breaks to corporations, grants or research partnerships with the government. Without strong incentives like this, I do not see O&G companies going out of their way to put themselves into the ground. I'm hoping to see a bunch of new players start up once the government starts providing these breaks and guarantees. Hopefully.
Nothing short of small scale compact Thorium would provide the energy density, small footprint and would be classified as cheap, nor theoretically feasible, in the next 10 years. We are neither a leader in alternative energy production or research, and without fast and immediate funding for that type of research, we will not be. You can't just throw money at field and hope to become an expert in it overnight.
What I was trying to point out is we have the biggest gap to make up out of any other province in Canada to move towards nuclear/renewable. Without heavy investment now, we will be the one holding the biggest bag of debt from the transition. We cannot rely on some mythical, as yet undiscovered technology... rather we'll need to phase this in over time so the costs can be recouped. Sure, some day we may harness the power of unicorns that shiet rainbows for our interwebz, but that can't be relied on.
Hopefully the political will is there in our province to start moving things rather than the short sighted drinking from a declining gravy train as the world moves towards alternative energies.
The molten salt reactors you describe can run on uranium, thorium, plutonium and spent nuclear fuel. They are fuel flexible, and help us eliminate MANY of the issues associated with light water fission. They are being developed by several private interests (Terrestrial Energy (Canadian), Transatomic Power (US), and others) and major government projects around the world (most notable is China's program, although there are others). It is feasible that commercial demonstration plants for reactors of this type will begin operating in the early part of next decade. Less than 10 years!
You are bang on about the footprint, energy density, economics and distributed nature of this power supply. They are ideal machines to couple with growth in renewables. The world needs them now, and in a big way.
Alberta is like any other jurisdiction in the world and has an opportunity to get involved with commercializing this exact technology. The options to invest in legitimate programs are numerous, several are fundraising and doing engineering work as we speak. Where Alberta differs from some is that these reactors can be used to supply heat and electricity directly to the energy intense processes that are currently driving it's economy. The oil sands are literally a PERFECT proving ground and bridge into a new energy era for the province, one based on Gen IV nuclear fission technology. Imagine the collaboration possible in Western Canada developing uranium, conventional resources, new engineering and manufacturing plants in growing this technology. Incredible.
Now it is unfortunate that when our government has a fund of billions of dollars set aside to invest in projects exactly like this which reduce carbon footprint, stimulate technological development and the economy as a whole, that they choose to pass over such opportunities because a 7 year time window to demonstration is outside of the desired 5 year commercialization objective. Horse####.
What we need is a government with some balls and a public with will to innovate. We can use the industry we have as a springboard into a brighter future, we do not need to abandon it overnight and be left wondering what is next.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
The molten salt reactors you describe can run on uranium, thorium, plutonium and spent nuclear fuel. They are fuel flexible, and help us eliminate MANY of the issues associated with light water fission. They are being developed by several private interests (Terrestrial Energy (Canadian), Transatomic Power (US), and others) and major government projects around the world (most notable is China's program, although there are others). It is feasible that commercial demonstration plants for reactors of this type will begin operating in the early part of next decade. Less than 10 years!
Reason I was pushing Thorium is the whole reaction chain produces byproducts that have a much shorter half life. It's considered safest among the list.
You are spot on with the rest of it... right now it's political will and too many people, and politicians, are too addicted to the fossil fuel crack to consider the eventual withdraw and consequences.
I'm hoping things turn around in the coming years, but not holding my breath. Why does Terrestrial Energy not qualify again? It should be only 5ish years out I thought.
Let's say the government had both the funds and the appetite to invest in diversification. What is the most effective way to actually accomplish it?
Tax breaks to companies in the target sector?
Pour money into our universities?
Government funded R&D labs?
Government funded private equity type investments?
I can't help but think that if the govt pours money into this type of research it is doomed to not work, or just provide a buch of guys with great paying jobs.
I would think that some small company will perhaps come across something. my first thought was that if you could make a motor to power a vehicle that runs on something such as power gel then the next issue is distributing the motors to vehicle manufactures and getting a distribution network for the power gel.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
The Government has been investing in many technology based innovations...it's just not widely appreciated by the public
Google CCEMC or Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions for a sample of investment.
This is the space I work in. Last week we visited a lab of a nanotechnology researcher in Edmonton who is working on a solar panel that can directly change water into H and O2 also she is working on a system for turning CO2 into methane (her name is Jillian Buriak if you want to see her work).
There are literally tens of millions (easily) spent on basic research, applied research and technology company support every year by the Government of Alberta. Usually delivered by a bunch of arms length organizations who fund research at Universities and Companies.
John Q Public rarely learns about this cool #### though.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Last edited by Fozzie_DeBear; 06-11-2015 at 10:07 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
And Peter Lougheed setup the Heritage Fund for the Alberta public to help upgrade oil and gas revenue into socioeconomic province building initiatives (like building the science base) I'm very pleased to hear that the NDP is considering building that fund properly.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
...
Tax breaks to companies in the target sector?
Pour money into our universities?
Government funded R&D labs?
Government funded private equity type investments?
etc...
I like this idea, in general. Build a National research power house now, while the money is still there. But is it possible, in principle, here? Silicon Valley has the most impressive concentration of higher education and research facilities in addition to, perhaps, the best climate in the world. Yet, California is a complete disaster, economically, that neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to be able to fix no matter how much more taxes they grab. Income disparity is only increasing there.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
I can't help but think that if the govt pours money into this type of research it is doomed to not work, or just provide a buch of guys with great paying jobs.
I would think that some small company will perhaps come across something. my first thought was that if you could make a motor to power a vehicle that runs on something such as power gel then the next issue is distributing the motors to vehicle manufactures and getting a distribution network for the power gel.
I will never understand this false idea that government funded science work is this cushy high paid work. The opposite is true, private sector research pays better, in fact some of the greatest contributions to our world come from big investments in technology and science by governments.
Just a few that come to mind:
1. The internet - Early investments into ARPANET and NSFNET and most of the early computing was Government funded, this laid the massive groundwork of computing today.
2. Rail systems, road systems.
3. Bio investment, agriculture, research science, etc..
4. Side benefits from investments in Military, NASA, that ended up with breakthroughs and benefits to consumers, to medical science, etc..
I mean there is a very real benefit to large government investments in science and technology. Sweden has been doing awesome things with increasing their investments while others are cutting theirs.
Quote:
Since the global financial crisis, Sweden has lived in an alternative universe of science funding. While austerity policies have kept research funding levels flat in much of Europe since 2008, Sweden's public science budget has increased by 5 billion Swedish kronor (US$786 million) over the past 5 years with a rise of another 4 billion kronor to come over the next 5 years. And, as seemingly endless government budget battles have slowed US infrastructure investment, Sweden has seen a building boom. The country has constructed a national high-throughput life-sciences laboratory; begun building new clinical-research laboratories and a hospital; and broken ground on a powerful synchrotron light source and a neutron source.
Now Sweden is increasing international recruitment, backed by public and private money, to fill its facilities and fulfil ambitious research agendas. The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation in Stockholm has been the biggest non-government player in infrastructure investment and international science hiring. Last year, the foundation introduced the Wallenberg Academy Fellows programme to recruit and fund 300 young scientists over 10 years, aiming for 30–50% of the fellows to come from outside Sweden.
What always gets me is this idea that investment into these fields is so opposed often by conservatives, like this is some major waste of money. The benefits to Canada by becoming a leader in research and technology pays for itself in numerous ways, there is a VAST amount of money to be made by growing these sectors and its inevitable we will have to move away from our reliance on oil, gas and mining to some degree.
Hell even big oil says we need to invest more in STEM:
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
I will never understand this false idea that government funded science work is this cushy high paid work. The opposite is true, private sector research pays better, in fact some of the greatest contributions to our world come from big investments in technology and science by governments.
Just a few that come to mind:
1. The internet - Early investments into ARPANET and NSFNET and most of the early computing was Government funded, this laid the massive groundwork of computing today.
2. Rail systems, road systems.
3. Bio investment, agriculture, research science, etc..
4. Side benefits from investments in Military, NASA, that ended up with breakthroughs and benefits to consumers, to medical science, etc..
I mean there is a very real benefit to large government investments in science and technology. Sweden has been doing awesome things with increasing their investments while others are cutting theirs.
What always gets me is this idea that investment into these fields is so opposed often by conservatives, like this is some major waste of money. The benefits to Canada by becoming a leader in research and technology pays for itself in numerous ways, there is a VAST amount of money to be made by growing these sectors and its inevitable we will have to move away from our reliance on oil, gas and mining to some degree.
Hell even big oil says we need to invest more in STEM:
Quote:
The Conservative government wraps virtually everything it does these days in the magic cloak of “jobs and growth.”
Trade deals, infrastructure spending, business subsidies and tax breaks for families and small businesses. Everything on the economic front gets the familiar J-and-G spin – even if there’s scant evidence these efforts generate much of either.
And yet in one vital area where governments really can make a difference – innovation – Ottawa’s commitment has been inconsistent and its investments wanting.
A new report on science and technology policy from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paints a grim picture of Canada’s place in the world. Canada has tumbled out of the top 10 research and development (R&D) spenders since the Great Recession, steadily ceding ground to more aggressive nations on a host of innovation measures.
Canada now ranks 12th in overall spending, according to the report, released last week. It invested less in R&D in 2012 ($21.8-billion U.S.) than it did in 2004 ($22.7-billion). Four countries that Canada handily outspent a decade ago – Russia, India, Taiwan and Brazil – have all jumped ahead.
Taiwan, which spent half of what Canada did in 2002, now tops this country by nearly $3-billion a year.
Canada’s R&D “intensity” – spending as a percentage of gross domestic product – is equally worrying. The rate has been on a steady decline for more than a decade and now stands at 1.69 per cent of GDP, well below the OECD average of 2.4 per cent. In 2012, 20 other countries outspent Canada relative to the size of their economies.
The R&D intensity leader is South Korea, a country with which Canada is now bound in a free-trade agreement, creating new competitive pressures for Canadian businesses.
Half of federal government scientists who responded to a poll believe the Conservatives’ cuts to science budgets have already damaged their ability to serve the public.
The vast majority — 91 per cent — of respondents believe upcoming cuts will erode that ability further.
Scientists working at Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, and in Agriculture were among the most likely to report that cuts to their departments had a detrimental effect on their ability to serve the public. Environmental research and regulation is the area scientists were most likely to be concerned about.
The survey was commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union that represents federal scientists, researchers and engineers, and was conducted online by Environics Research last June.
According to PIPSC, $758.1 million has already been cut from federal science budgets and by 2016 a total of $2.6 billion will be cut.
