Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

UCP supports are preventing you from a career change? You must have the longest arms around.

That’s a reach.

Now that you’ve (hopefully) sobered up do you plan on responding to some of the questions you were asked last night or at least taking some responsibility for your behaviour?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

the bad news for you is that you will probably never see a Federal conservative gov't ever again.

You’re prob right.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691497118064582665

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691812065885778115

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691541104087429121

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

UCP supports are preventing you from a career change? You must have the longest arms around.

That’s a reach.

Seems pretty logical to me. People vote for a government who are ideologically driven, rather than driven by facts, science and economics. Governments exist to support the economy, and workers are a part of that. By abdicating their responsibility, it's directly affecting mine, and other O&G workers who see the writing on the wall, (or have already lost employment) and would see value in programs to assist in quickly getting up to speed in new industries that, well, were bringing investment dollars in.

Would you care to explain why doing the opposite of this is good for Alberta, it's economy, and people? I'm kind of curious how this can be defended as a benefit.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691541104087429121

"Reliable back up gas generation" during heavy loads and price spikes would be the peaker plants.

"The regulations will also allow a certain level of natural gas power production without the need to capture emissions. Capturing emissions will be exempted during emergencies and peak periods when renewables cannot keep up with demand. "

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ease-1.6932332

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Basically I’m providing my own personal views on politics in this province with the hopes of maybe convincing the more rationally thinking supporters of Danielle Smith with kindness that she should either reverse or at least moderate a single one of her party’s policies that her sycophants are trying to fool voters into believing is a good thing for Albertans when it really isn’t. In the perhaps vain hope that they’ll hold her accountable to implement said policy change that would actually help working Albertans with minimal to zero government intervention. You know, with freedom and all that allegedly being paramount to her and a number of her supporters.

I do so because I actually give a #### about the well being of the average Albertan, something I don’t think the premiere would pass a polygraph test while saying.

Your turn.

I guess to answer your question, isle there is one here, good for you! I don’t know how many policies you will get changed from a message board, but it’s is a fun discussion.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Did he, though?

He certainly took credit for killing it to try and win points on his left flank in BC, but Northern Gateway was dead in the water by that time. The 200+ conditions that were slapped on the project before Trudeau and the Liberals took government is what ‘screwed’ the project.

Harper never supported Gateway after he approved it with the 200+ conditions. Never spoke publicly about it, they never had a press conference, they sent out their two paragraph written statement at 6 PM EST in writing on the day of approval and never spoke of it again while in government. A little support from the bully pulpit and it may have happened, but that was a bridge too far for conservatives. They were never really that supportive of pipelines while in government.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'll start with saying that I am a massive proponent and advocate for energy transition. It is my passion and part of my work. I voted NDP this last election. So with that out of the way...

The renewables (wind and solar) issue is valid. They are creating grid instability and pricing volatility, and ironically are a fundamental risk to being able to deliver on an affordable net-zero grid in the future.

Here's a rough breakdown of my reasoning:

1) Grid reliability is paramount (lights can't go out). Unfortunately we can go through long multi-week periods of relatively dark and windless times in the winter when cold fronts set in. We do not have the geology for large scale hydro to manage this as most of our hydro ability is run-of-river which can manage hours/days, not a week+. We also don't have the tie-lines to BC and Manitoba to do so, and their hydro will be needed for their own electrification. Batteries would be a drop in the bucket for this supply gap. So this means we need to maintain a near duplicate backup fleet of thermal generation. Problem: Higher electricity rates or higher taxes as excessive infrastructure needs to be paid for by someone.

2) These types of thermal peaker plants do not pair well with CCUS. CCUS is better suited for non-dispatchable baseload generation like combined cycle plants. So for these peaker plants to be net-zero, you're probably left with hydrogen fired. Problem: Higher electricity rates or higher taxes as further additional hydrogen facilities and distribution infrastructure needs to be paid for by someone.

3) These issues will only be further exacerbated by electrification of our economy via in-home heating shifting from gas to electric, and electric vehicles. When are people going to turn on the heat and plug their cars in in the winter??? ...after they get home from work...when its dark.

That's the issue with the Clean Electricity Regulation's 2035 timeline for Alberta. It is basically forcing us to a renewables and backup "clean thermal" (CCGT+CCUS or H2 fired peakers) grid because it is the only available technology that can meet that timeline, instead of having more time for a better long term solution like small modular nuclear reactors which are more of a 2050 timeline. In short, a massive amount of money funded by either taxpayers or electricity consumers getting poured into a massive amount of suboptimal infrastructure.

Wind and solar are not the solution. They just get in the way of a reliable, affordable, net-zero grid of the future.

I agree that we need thermal to backup renewables. I guess my question is, would this ultimately cost us more? Once installed, solar and wind have low operating costs and produce near free electricity. Would this be enough to offset the cost of backup NG over the life of the plant/solar & wind? I have no idea, but that seems like interesting math.


I also don't really think "we'll do it by 2050 with SMR's" is much of a plan, given no one has proven the economics/success of SMR's at this point. It's wishful thinking pawning off the problem. It also doesn't really make any sense given Alberta's population centres. You should be planing on real reactors, o ryou are just going to need 20 "small" ones in the same spot.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Not sure. He may loosen the restrictions and obligations placed on these types of projects a bit though. Getting a pipe approved may not come with 3,000 conditions that escalate the cost of building one to akin to building a nuclear power plant.

Is this just a pipeline problem though? Or is this an everything infrastructure problem?

Building new rail lines, high voltage transmission, hydro dams, mines, refineries, the aforementioned nuclear plants, it's all impossible now. Slow and extremely expensive at best.

For some reason the only thing anyone has apatite for is roads.

I think we have a serious problem, and we need to fix it, but pretending it's targeted at Alberta and no one loves us isn't going to generate the national response it takes to fix the underlying issues. It's just whiny and annoying.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I guess to answer your question, isle there is one here, good for you! I don’t know how many policies you will get changed from a message board, but it’s is a fun discussion.

Actually the question was what goal you were seeking to achieve from your drunken rambles, but since you seem pretty set on not answering we can move on.

Not looking to change policies from a message board, just sharing my 2 cents in the hopes that people who have been straight up bull####ted by certain people and politicians realize it

[RoadGame]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

"The regulations will also allow a certain level of natural gas power production without the need to capture emissions. Capturing emissions will be exempted during emergencies and peak periods when renewables cannot keep up with demand. "

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ease-1.6932332

Yeah the draft CER caps their operation at 450 hours per year (450/8760 ~ 5%) and longer only with the federal minister's approval on a plant-by-plant basis and it has to be renewed every 90 days.

The 450 won't create enough revenue potential to keep those peaking plants viable without dramatically increasing the market's price ceiling or introducing either a capacity payment or a new reliability product that functions like a capacity payment for those assets.

The process for operating in excess of 450 is sufficiently burdensome that it's not a practical solution at scale.

Anyway, I'm just trying to highlight that it's not like the solution to the backup power issue is already in the current CER draft as-written.

Disclaimer: I work in the industry across all technology types and am a centrist politically so please don't make assumptions about where I'm coming from in this discussion.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You’re prob right.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691497118064582665

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691812065885778115

These polls are meaningless now. A fight with Smith over renewables is exactly what the federal liberals need to get lower mainland and GTA. Sad that they're going to give it to him (again).

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Is this just a pipeline problem though? Or is this an everything infrastructure problem?

Building new rail lines, high voltage transmission, hydro dams, mines, refineries, the aforementioned nuclear plants, it's all impossible now. Slow and extremely expensive at best.

For some reason the only thing anyone has apatite for is roads.

I think we have a serious problem, and we need to fix it, but pretending it's targeted at Alberta and no one loves us isn't going to generate the national response it takes to fix the underlying issues. It's just whiny and annoying.

Oh totally agree. Yes it is on everything, not just pipelines. Canada has a massive problem IMO. Nobody can or wants to build anything. That is a huge, huge issue. The country and prevailing attitude is very anti-development, and an abandonment and severe under appreciation to what has enabled Canada to become what it is today. But yeah, pipelines in particular are not getting constructed.

I think you’re right the industry is pretty whiny, entitled and they feel targeted. but personally I understand where the sentiment comes from. I understand why not everyone shares that view too.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Major Major

These polls are meaningless now. A fight with Smith over renewables is exactly what the federal liberals need to get lower mainland and GTA. Sad that they're going to give it to him (again).

I can say as a Torontonian, PP had done absolutely nothing to get GTA voters on board. He basically sticks to doing small town events and the periphery areas of the Golden horseshoe, but doesn't actually hit the urban centers at all. And right now we're currently steamed at Doug Ford for the Greenbelt scandal.

He's going need an ace up his sleeve to win over the 647.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Major Major

These polls are meaningless now. A fight with Smith over renewables is exactly what the federal liberals need to get lower mainland and GTA. Sad that they're going to give it to him (again).

I think Ozy said before (?) that the GTA doesn’t pay attention to Alberta politics. I could be mistaken…

[Ozy_Flame]

You are correct. They have bigger fish to fry on the home front, and you only really hear about Alberta politics organically if Danielle Smith or her band of clowns does something really stupid, like put moratoriums on renewables. Then it's back to radio silence.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I think Ozy said before (?) that the GTA doesn’t pay attention to Alberta politics. I could be mistaken…

No one is paying attention now because there's no election and no campaign.

What is Poly-b going to do when asked about his support of Smith and her attack on green energy? Lights out

Just like when they asked the last guy about unvaccinated MPs.

[Izzle]

Or when media asks PP why there isn't even a single pro-choice conservative MP?

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You’re prob right.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691497118064582665

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691812065885778115

You have to be pretty dumb if you think these poll numbers will translate closer to the election. Scheer had polling numbers like this too. What happened there?

Pierre is too rightwing deplorable for GTA. but you already knew that.

[Yoho]

Polarizing topic in Alberta.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691801985799127380