Alberta Politics Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What if an energy company (a big one, like Shell or BP. Not a new start up) just went "F*** it. Were taking all funds out of oil R&D and putting it into renewals. All profit will be dedicated to this."

Their stock would plummet, no one would invest, and the company would crumble. But with the resources they have on hand, they may be able to actually do something meaningful in this area, and be a pioneer, and thus potentially profit BIG TIME as everyone else lags behind. Just continuing to pour resources into oil extraction (with minute resources going to alt R&D) seems crazy to me, even from a long-term profit perspective.

Such a company would be dead before it came close to producing anything useful. (Assuming the entire board and senior management team weren't fired by shareholders before such a press conference was over.) And dead with it would be other companies that rely on BP or Shell to survive. And a lot of people's investments - not just the shareholder whales people like to complain about, but your parents and their RRSPs - would be decimated. The assured failure of a company like that would shock the economy. You might suggest that is a good or necessary thing, except the increased need for government support of people crushed by the fallout could very well come at the expense of government funding/subsidies of the very clean tech you are promoting.

As far as "minute resources going to alt R&D", that is largely naive, but not completely so. Shell, for instance, has an R&D budget well over $1.3 billion US and a good percentage of that is in biofuels, wind, etc. Other companies - especially in the downturn - have either reduced such R&D or sold their alt tech holdings off. Those new companies will be the ones to succeed. And I've already noted TransAlta - though a much, much smaller company in the grand scale, has subsidiaries dedicated to renewables. Some companies that fail to adapt will fail themselves. Others will succeed. Such is the way of the world.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Fair enough. He started doing that once profit became the goal. But him and Wozniak sitting in their garage building computers wasn't about money. I don't think Jobs had dollar signs in his eyes at that point. He just wanted to make something that people could use without a computer science degree.

Musk. Gates. Einstein. Tesla.

These people created/discovered because they saw things differently than others. Some of them made money, some of them didn't. I'm sure Tesla wishes he died a wealthy man, but if he could see the impact his ideas and inventions have had on humanity, he would probably be pretty pleased with his contribution.

Profit was always the goal. You're way too naive if you think it wasn't. If it wasn't they wouldn't have started a business, they would have just shared the ideas.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by zamler

Last time I checked the energy return of solar is about 50:1.

The EROI of solar is a very debatable value, and depends a lot of where it's made, where it's used and whether you consider storage or backup as part of it (as solar typically doesn't produce electricity when you most need it).

[zamler]

Originally Posted by accord1999

...solar typically doesn't produce electricity when you most need it.

This is the biggest hurdle but a huge offset to this is charge an electric car during daylight. Here's one study on solar payback I believe this is about 5 years old but good info.

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What if an energy company (a big one, like Shell or BP. Not a new start up) just went "F*** it. Were taking all funds out of oil R&D and putting it into renewals. All profit will be dedicated to this."

Their stock would plummet, no one would invest, and the company would crumble. But with the resources they have on hand, they may be able to actually do something meaningful in this area, and be a pioneer, and thus potentially profit BIG TIME as everyone else lags behind. Just continuing to pour resources into oil extraction (with minute resources going to alt R&D) seems crazy to me, even from a long-term profit perspective.

There is more to capital than just stock prices. If Shell were to do this, they would have to produce something very valueble, very quickly, or they would be destroyed as soon as their next debt payment/maturity was due, because they would no longer have access to debt capital markets and would not be able to refinance.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

Profit was always the goal. You're way too naive if you think it wasn't. If it wasn't they wouldn't have started a business, they would have just shared the ideas.

I'm not so sure that's true. Protecting their ideas is not the same as goals being profit oriented.

I'll use myself as an example. I finished writing my book. I didn't start writing a book with the intention of making money from it. I didn't sit down at my computer every night typing going "yeahhhhh I'm gonna be rich off this crap!" I did it because I wanted to do it. I had an idea and wanted to write it down.

But now that it's finished, you better believe I'm going to protect that in anyway I can while maybe, possibly, pursuing some form of profit off of it. And even that isn't about money, it's about people being interested in reading it. At some point, you have to go through the business side or you end up like Tesla. But it's the business side that it interested in the profit, the creators are interested in recognition. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you get neither. But me bringing my book to Penguin Publishing or something isn't about profit, it's about getting it in as many hands as possible. For Penguin Publishing, it's about profit. They don't care about content or anything, they care if people will buy it, and that's all. And that's why we end up with things like Twilight.

I think the same goes for a lot of people that have innovated or invented something. They did it because they wanted to do it, or wanted to use it themselves, and only after doing it, did the motivation for profit come into play. But IMO, future profits is hardly ever the motivation to create something new. Because things that are new are hardly ever profitable.

And yeah, at the end of the day, if you make something new, and people like it enough to buy it, you want your name on it, rather than selling the idea to someone else. Which is why new companies end up being created vs sharing the tech, as you say.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

There is more to capital than just stock prices. If Shell were to do this, they would have to produce something very valueble, very quickly, or they would be destroyed as soon as their next debt payment/maturity was due, because they would no longer have access to debt capital markets and would not be able to refinance.

This is kind of the crux of my whole point. Companies can't do this, even if they wanted too, because they are hampered by our current economic system. Even if what they are doing was incredibly important to humanity, if it doesn't make money right away, they can't do it.

That's a problem for me.

[Ironhorse]

Can you guys please make your own thread on alternative fuel and what it takes to get there? I'm in this thread looking for discussions on Alberta politics

[puckedoff]

^ Less windmills more windbags

[Resolute 14]

I was thinking the same, but meh. hopefully a mod happens by and deigns to split the thread.

Of course, we could go back to arguing about minimum wage again.

[IliketoPuck]

It's just been a slow news week for NDP related blunders. But on the bright side, it is only Tuesday.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not so sure that's true. Protecting their ideas is not the same as goals being profit oriented.

I'll use myself as an example. I finished writing my book. I didn't start writing a book with the intention of making money from it. I didn't sit down at my computer every night typing going "yeahhhhh I'm gonna be rich off this crap!" I did it because I wanted to do it. I had an idea and wanted to write it down.

But now that it's finished, you better believe I'm going to protect that in anyway I can while maybe, possibly, pursuing some form of profit off of it. And even that isn't about money, it's about people being interested in reading it. At some point, you have to go through the business side or you end up like Tesla. But it's the business side that it interested in the profit, the creators are interested in recognition. Sometimes you get both, sometimes you get neither. But me bringing my book to Penguin Publishing or something isn't about profit, it's about getting it in as many hands as possible. For Penguin Publishing, it's about profit. They don't care about content or anything, they care if people will buy it, and that's all. And that's why we end up with things like Twilight.

I think the same goes for a lot of people that have innovated or invented something. They did it because they wanted to do it, or wanted to use it themselves, and only after doing it, did the motivation for profit come into play. But IMO, future profits is hardly ever the motivation to create something new. Because things that are new are hardly ever profitable.

And yeah, at the end of the day, if you make something new, and people like it enough to buy it, you want your name on it, rather than selling the idea to someone else. Which is why new companies end up being created vs sharing the tech, as you say.

Steve Jobs was as big of a capitalist as there was out there, the bottom line is he did a lot of recreation of his motives through pretty slick public relations. But at the end of the day, he wasn't some hippy building computers for the betterment of man kind.



He drove a new Mercedes every 6 months.

He also owned a luxury boat worth 100 million dollars



He was all about improving his net worth

[Kjesse]

Its a bad week for Brian Jean. First he lets his party go over the top on Ontario's premier in the Legislature, then, suspends his most popular MLA.

On the suspension, Jean had to act fast and decisively because WR will only have success in Edmonton and Calgary if they shed their red-neck image, but Fildebrandt is probably one of the most effective and popular MLA's in the province--- whether you agree with him or not.

Now Jean had to blink and presto, Fildebrandt is back in the caucus, and Jean has been heavily wounded.

Its clear to me that WR needs to rebrand entirely, probably with a new right-of-center party which is socially "with the times".

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Its a bad week for Brian Jean. First he lets his party go over the top on Ontario's premier in the Legislature, then, suspends his most popular MLA.

On the suspension, Jean had to act fast and decisively because WR will only have success in Edmonton and Calgary if they shed their red-neck image, but Fildebrandt is probably one of the most effective and popular MLA's in the province--- whether you agree with him or not.

Now Jean had to blink and presto, Fildebrandt is back in the caucus, and Jean has been heavily wounded.

Its clear to me that WR needs to rebrand entirely, probably with a new right-of-center party which is socially "with the times".

The conditions reported in multiple news orgs rumoured to be the conditions Fildebrant was to meet: http://daveberta.ca/2016/05/derek-fi...jean-wildrose/

Mr. Jean said one of the conditions for the suspended MLA’s return to caucus was that he change the way he uses social media. The rest of the conditions for Mr. Fildebrant’s return were to be kept secret, but a source in the Wildrose Party has shared Mr. Jean’s ultimatum:

1. He is suspended from the Wildrose Official Opposition Caucus until the end of the current Legislative Session.
2. He will be on probation until September 1, 2016.
3. He has to commit to personal improvement and personal development.
4. He would be prohibited from doing any media interviews except with local media in his Strathmore-Brooks constituency.
5. He will not be reappointed as Finance critic when he returns to the Wildrose Caucus

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He also owned a luxury boat worth 100 million dollars



He was all about improving his net worth

Damn, that's a nice looking yacht. The man sure had taste.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Its clear to me that WR needs to rebrand entirely, probably with a new right-of-center party which is socially "with the times".

Isn't that just called 'The Liberal' party?

Nearly a third of the voters at the latest convention still opposed loosing the reigns on anti-lgbt policy language.

The Wild Rose doesn't have a hope in hell of being elected without that 33% who are socially conservative.

[killer_carlson]

Does a guy like Fildebrandt fit within a new right of center party on fiscal issues?

[Mr.Coffee]

Even according to very reputable sources, such as the EIA, their latest reports indicate fossil fuels will comprise >70% of energy use by 2040. This was a downward adjustment from just 2 years ago that was over 80%.

Regardless, oil and gas as an energy source will continue to grow... as a portion of overall human energy consumption, and, obviously, be a huge part of energy use into the future. I personally believe there will be a future with both increasing efficiency on energy use and achieving emission and global climate change targets. There is a balance that will be struck by humanity in my mind, and I think ultimately the technology and understanding will get to a point where the Earth can be bio-engineered to achieve some kind of equilibrium (or at least we think we will think we can, but there are, of course, so many other variables at play).

I also think, related to my point above, that climate change is also a function of natural processes such as volcanoes, solar activity, regular natural changes in weather patterns like El Nino events, etc. These are all very frequently disregarded in favour of the more popular blame humans for everything campaigns by people largely trying to pat themselves on the back for being good people and claiming they know more than they actually do.

Like everything in life, as it goes with this debate, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle of what the two sides muse over.

Lastly, to edit here quick, I always like how George Carlin described all of this. To paraphrase he said, at the end of the day the Earth will be just fine. Oil and gas in fact comes from the Earth. Earth is great... it will always be great. It's the people that are ####ed. And we probably will be anyway from an asteroid one day, just like the dinosaurs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Lastly, to edit here quick, I always like how George Carlin described all of this. To paraphrase he said, at the end of the day the Earth will be just fine. Oil and gas in fact comes from the Earth. Earth is great... it will always be great. It's the people that are ####ed. And we probably will be anyway from an asteroid one day, just like the dinosaurs.

Every morning I get up before sunrise and make a cup of coffee. I step outside and sit on the porch and sip my coffee and stare at the sun and ask the question.

What the hell is taking so long?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Like everything in life, as it goes with this debate, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle of what the two sides muse over.

Your logical fallacy is: