She may know there is no way she could fool enough Canadians as easily as her ucp base
Ironically this part of her plan works against her. By her grandstanding BS and essentially making Alberta and it's citizens inherently unlikeable the rest of the country would probably tell her to pound sand just out of pure spite.
The way it should be.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
That effectively makes the oil sands a Canadian resource as much as an Alberta one. Like it not, facts are facts. So pipelines too benefit all Canadians by allowing for more production. That narrative needs to be amplified because continued development of the oil sands (which could be doubled in terms of daily production) would result in a meaningful improvement in public services across the country without needing to increase personal or corporate income tax to pay for it.
I'm dont work in oil and gas (nor am I invested in it), but I genuinely appreciate what a gift the oil sands are, allowing us a substantially higher level of public services relative to the taxes we pay. I think we'd all be better off as Canadians if that was more widely appreciated. There's a reason why Saudis, Norwegians, Emeratis, Kruwatis, etc have a consensus to maximize oil and gas production. It's because the citizens can clearly sees how much they benefit from it.
That only works as long as you prescribe to the OPEC forecast of "OIL FOREVER".
The fact is, there are a lot of experts who believe that peak oil demand could be in the next 5-10 years (depending on how much sabotage we see from the right wing politicians and their O&G overlords).
Looking at facts around the world:
The speed in which China is electrifying their country and their ability to control that change within their nation, it is reasonable to expect that China could be off oil faster than any other country
Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia are all working hard to electrify their nations as well. (I've been personally very interested in watching Japan's effort because their Perovskite solar cells are going to be transformative.)
In the UK and EU, they are also driving green initiative, carbon taxes, and electrification of their industries. (I think the archimedes wind turbine looks like an impressive scientific feat to maximize energy generation while reducing noise)
North America was moving quickly toward electrification but Trump has put a stop to a lot of that
From a capitalistic point of view, it is very interesting to see the momentum building up to replace O&G. The market knows that the end is coming (even if they do not know when) and now it is a race to see what will replace the mighty Oil and who can make the most money in the new energy technology markets.
All of this is to say that there is another reason that there may be no private company willing to invest money into a new Alberta to coast pipeline: There is a huge risk that the pipeline won't be completed until after peak oil and the profitability of the pipeline would then be unlikely or could even be a huge loss. Again, from a capitalism point of view, if this new pipeline was easy money then there would be a line of companies kicking down the door to the Canada MPO to be the proponent. However, they are not doing so and it is likely because of the risk that it won't actually be profitable. Corporations do not like risk, they only like profit.
As for the "reason why" the Saudis, Norwegians, Emeratis, Kruwatis, etc are maximizing production right now... that could simply be an attempt to maximize profit before peak oil demand hits. Essentially, they are cashing out. If you believe that the peak oil demand is on the horizon then the next logical step is to consider why OPEC is lying (to make mountains of money, duh!). The Saudis are actually investing a lot of money into renewables, almost as if they want to be on the other side of the energy transition BEFORE the O&G industry peaks and starts to decline. (Their target is to be 50% renewable energy by 2030 and they are investing billions into making that happen)
Personally, I would rather see Alberta invest heavily into the energy transition and industry diversification of our province. Whether you believe peak oil demand is 5 years or 30 years away, transforming our province to that degree needs a lot of runway. We can still produce and sell oil at high amounts but we should strive to no longer be dependent on the industry. Once we are reliably independent of O&G, the continued revenue from that industry would be a bonus to the betterment of our people instead of our one and only lifeline.
Ironically this part of her plan works against her. By her grandstanding BS and essentially making Alberta and it's citizens inherently unlikeable the rest of the country would probably tell her to pound sand just out of pure spite.
The way it should be.
Trouble is, thats what they want. Alberta Conservatives thrive on the idea that somehow they are victims. People scoffing at their misgivings is porn for UCP types.
That only works as long as you prescribe to the OPEC forecast of "OIL FOREVER".
The fact is, there are a lot of experts who believe that peak oil demand could be in the next 5-10 years (depending on how much sabotage we see from the right wing politicians and their O&G overlords).
Looking at facts around the world:
The speed in which China is electrifying their country and their ability to control that change within their nation, it is reasonable to expect that China could be off oil faster than any other country
Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia are all working hard to electrify their nations as well. (I've been personally very interested in watching Japan's effort because their Perovskite solar cells are going to be transformative.)
In the UK and EU, they are also driving green initiative, carbon taxes, and electrification of their industries. (I think the archimedes wind turbine looks like an impressive scientific feat to maximize energy generation while reducing noise)
North America was moving quickly toward electrification but Trump has put a stop to a lot of that
From a capitalistic point of view, it is very interesting to see the momentum building up to replace O&G. The market knows that the end is coming (even if they do not know when) and now it is a race to see what will replace the mighty Oil and who can make the most money in the new energy technology markets.
All of this is to say that there is another reason that there may be no private company willing to invest money into a new Alberta to coast pipeline: There is a huge risk that the pipeline won't be completed until after peak oil and the profitability of the pipeline would then be unlikely or could even be a huge loss. Again, from a capitalism point of view, if this new pipeline was easy money then there would be a line of companies kicking down the door to the Canada MPO to be the proponent. However, they are not doing so and it is likely because of the risk that it won't actually be profitable. Corporations do not like risk, they only like profit.
As for the "reason why" the Saudis, Norwegians, Emeratis, Kruwatis, etc are maximizing production right now... that could simply be an attempt to maximize profit before peak oil demand hits. Essentially, they are cashing out. If you believe that the peak oil demand is on the horizon then the next logical step is to consider why OPEC is lying (to make mountains of money, duh!). The Saudis are actually investing a lot of money into renewables, almost as if they want to be on the other side of the energy transition BEFORE the O&G industry peaks and starts to decline. (Their target is to be 50% renewable energy by 2030 and they are investing billions into making that happen)
Personally, I would rather see Alberta invest heavily into the energy transition and industry diversification of our province. Whether you believe peak oil demand is 5 years or 30 years away, transforming our province to that degree needs a lot of runway. We can still produce and sell oil at high amounts but we should strive to no longer be dependent on the industry. Once we are reliably independent of O&G, the continued revenue from that industry would be a bonus to the betterment of our people instead of our one and only lifeline.
I don’t have an issue with investing in renewables.
I don’t think you have this right. I think people have been calling “peak oil” since the ‘70’s or maybe even earlier. Oil is going to be around a long time. Same with gas and derivative products from those substances. There’s thousands of them. You also have developing countries that don’t give a #### about climate change and who’s standard of living is catching up to western places so I don’t think just based on the math you have the whole peak oil thing correct. Coal is still used in massive quantities, I think demand is like more than ever?
It would be a huge mistake to continue fumbling the ball on oil and gas. Especially when it’s such a huge geopolitical lever with the USA.
I don’t have an issue with investing in renewables.
I don’t think you have this right. I think people have been calling “peak oil” since the ‘70’s or maybe even earlier. Oil is going to be around a long time. Same with gas and derivative products from those substances. There’s thousands of them. You also have developing countries that don’t give a #### about climate change and who’s standard of living is catching up to western places so I don’t think just based on the math you have the whole peak oil thing correct. Coal is still used in massive quantities, I think demand is like more than ever?
It would be a huge mistake to continue fumbling the ball on oil and gas. Especially when it’s such a huge geopolitical lever with the USA.
Back in the '70s and '80s everyone thought we were going to run out of oil. It was all about when we would hit "peak oil supply" and then run out of reserves.
Now the conversation is about "peak oil demand", which implies that the supply will still be there but the market will be displaced by alternative technologies. As demand peaks and starts to decline, the profits will start to decline and the prices will drop as the cheapest suppliers will try to squeeze value out of the remaining market and essentially kill off the more expensive producers.
If the Oil Sands production stays profitable at $20/barrel, then things will get tighter and tighter as the prices go down but the market here will not crash. The moment that the Saudis or whoever pushes the price down to $15/barrel or $10/barrel then that is game over for Alberta.
Also, if you look at those developing countries, a lot of them are looking to leapfrog into electrification. With the new technology advancements and lowering cost of green technology it is becoming more and more reasonable for them to go green immediately and skip having to invest a bunch of money into legacy combustion technology just to have to invest a bunch more money to replace it all. A lot of the developing countries are in good locations for solar and wind which also makes it easier for them to go straight to those options instead of trying to stand up a coal plant or whatever. So while they might not care about the climate, they definitely care about effective spending of their money.
(In short, they are not stupid)
Fumbling the ball with oil and gas won't matter if the industry dies, but if we double and triple down on oil and gas and then the O&G industry crashes then the province would quickly become a "have not" province relying on equalization payments to come our way just to survive. Our priority should be diversification above all else.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Back in the '70s and '80s everyone thought we were going to run out of oil. It was all about when we would hit "peak oil supply" and then run out of reserves.
Now the conversation is about "peak oil demand", which implies that the supply will still be there but the market will be displaced by alternative technologies. As demand peaks and starts to decline, the profits will start to decline and the prices will drop as the cheapest suppliers will try to squeeze value out of the remaining market and essentially kill off the more expensive producers.
If the Oil Sands production stays profitable at $20/barrel, then things will get tighter and tighter as the prices go down but the market here will not crash. The moment that the Saudis or whoever pushes the price down to $15/barrel or $10/barrel then that is game over for Alberta.
Also, if you look at those developing countries, a lot of them are looking to leapfrog into electrification. With the new technology advancements and lowering cost of green technology it is becoming more and more reasonable for them to go green immediately and skip having to invest a bunch of money into legacy combustion technology just to have to invest a bunch more money to replace it all. A lot of the developing countries are in good locations for solar and wind which also makes it easier for them to go straight to those options instead of trying to stand up a coal plant or whatever. So while they might not care about the climate, they definitely care about effective spending of their money.
(In short, they are not stupid)
Fumbling the ball with oil and gas won't matter if the industry dies, but if we double and triple down on oil and gas and then the O&G industry crashes then the province would quickly become a "have not" province relying on equalization payments to come our way just to survive. Our priority should be diversification above all else.
My prediction - neither extreme view plays out. I don’t think a massive shift to electrification is going to completely displace oil and gas, but it will significantly blunt potential growth in consumption that may have occurred as the developing world catches up. I think you see usage stay pretty flat, oil and gas is pretty sticky as a fuel source, and there’s still no substitute for it in many, many situations and use cases.
I think there’s a case for another pipeline, it was a much better case 15 years ago, but still doable today. That said, it’s a still a slim chance, the producers don’t trust the government enough to push their chips in, no pipeline company around can do this in spec. I actually think the approach of having a government led, industry backed/staffed attempt to get this to feasibility isn’t half bad. It’s not a big dollar figure and if this gets legs you will see a consortium come together.
Now, how she’s going about it is of course completely wrong. She’s picking fights, being divisive and stirring up opposition as opposed to trying to win people over. Completely unsurprising from her, it’s all she knows but it’s gonna help kill this thing and it’s tricky enough as it is.
Also, if you look at those developing countries, a lot of them are looking to leapfrog into electrification. With the new technology advancements and lowering cost of green technology it is becoming more and more reasonable for them to go green immediately and skip having to invest a bunch of money into legacy combustion technology just to have to invest a bunch more money to replace it all.
There’s also a geopolitical aspect to it. Install renewables and they produce independently for a reasonable period of time (some maintenance obviously) but rely on O&G and your energy supply is at the whim of the markets.
There’s also a geopolitical aspect to it. Install renewables and they produce independently for a reasonable period of time (some maintenance obviously) but rely on O&G and your energy supply is at the whim of the markets.
These solar panels that will have significantly lower cost and higher longevity with more diverse applications (they are bendable and able to be transparent) which presents massive opportunities to turn anything into a solar panel... windows or wall coverings on skyscrapers, stadiums, bus stops, vehicles, houses, etc. Imagine how easily a building could be "net-zero" if the entire exterior was a solar cell.
Then there are the perovskite/silicon hybrid panels that are able to hit 27-33% energy capture. That is a massive leap.
Either of these innovations has the ability to put a massive dent in O&G consumption but there are actually multiple groups racing to bring these products to mass production. It is really just a matter of 'when'.
Then you have CATL, the largest battery manufacturer in the world, quietly starting mass production of sodium-ion batteries and already installing them in multiple Chinese EV models.... This solves a huge problem with lithium being the king of big batteries for cars and homes. Lithium does not like cold climates but sodium-ion batteries eliminates that problem, as well as the cost, carbon cost, and rarity of mining lithium. Sodium is ... everywhere.
The dotted lines between cheap solar panels and cheap large battery storage will be a massive disruptor to the energy market. CATL is moving fast with the batteries, so the question is really just how far behind on the next gen solar?
Canon claims to have solved it. The article linked in the previous post goes into that in great detail.
LOL, need more coffee. I was sad at the lack of detail having just seen the header image and scrolled to the grey bar. I, uh, did not see the article below.
But they don't say anything about anticipated lifetime, nor do they address the lead issue. And that could be the real holdback, because environmental standards are pretty down on lead, and if you start making all these super low cost flexible panels, they are bound to be disposed of in non-ideal ways. So getting them past regulators could be a real problem.
LOL, need more coffee. I was sad at the lack of detail having just seen the header image and scrolled to the grey bar. I, uh, did not see the article below.
But they don't say anything about anticipated lifetime, nor do they address the lead issue. And that could be the real holdback, because environmental standards are pretty down on lead, and if you start making all these super low cost flexible panels, they are bound to be disposed of in non-ideal ways. So getting them past regulators could be a real problem.
The claim is that the perovskite panels have potentially double the lifespan of the current solar panels (20 years -> 40 years). So in theory you get cheaper, more options for applications, and longer lifespan and for the same energy capture rate or better. Remember, not just flexible but also able to be transparent - every window in every building could become a solar panel.
It sounds like a massive step forward if they can figure out a few details.
The claim is that the perovskite panels have potentially double the lifespan of the current solar panels (20 years -> 40 years). So in theory you get cheaper, more options for applications, and longer lifespan and for the same energy capture rate or better. Remember, not just flexible but also able to be transparent - every window in every building could become a solar panel.
It sounds like a massive step forward if they can figure out a few details.
I am not sure what you are talking about with regard to lead... I do not see lead being mentioned in the new technology.
Where are you seeing these claimed lifespans? Everything I've read about perovskite includes short life as a major limitation. There are many efforts to get around this, some promising, but I haven't read that it is a solved issue.
As to the lead, well, perovskites can be made of other elements, but the ones with lead are the only ones producing above 10% efficiency:
Quote:
Even if Pb-free perovskite solar cells were to attain the same efficiency and stability as Pb-based ones, their cost and total environmental impact must be carefully analysed together with their effects on human health and global availability. Sn-based perovskites or other Pb-free perovskites show intrinsic limitations in terms of stability and efficiency, and do not offer substantial advantages in terms of cost, toxicity or environmental safety; on the other hand, Pb is an abundant and cheap element with a much smaller environmental impact, and it can be easily recycled from multiple sources. Nevertheless, Pb poses intrinsic health risks calling for further research on safer and more environmentally friendly elements to partially substitute Pb without neglecting cost, availability constraints and environmental impact. In conclusion, research and technology should really balance the advantages of using Pb for renewable energy generation with the risks associated with its manufacturing.
I guess I'm a little baffled how you can seem to know so much good stuff about them, but not have come across the lead issue.
Quote:
In addition to trapping the iodine compounds, these alumina nanoparticles helped form a more uniform structure while also forming a protective 2D layer, according to the researchers. When tested under levels of extreme heat and humidity (like those that’d be experienced outside the lab), the perovskites lasted two months, or roughly 1,530 hours—nearly a tenfold increase from the 160 hours endured by perovskites that weren’t enhanced with alumina.
I'm not saying these issues won't be resolved, but I think this is a bit of cart before the horse thinking. The Canon stuff, and other articles talk about improving the lifespan, but I don't see any 20-40 years stuff using cheap easy to produce methods. Improved lifespan claims on something that has a really short life doesn't necessarily mean it now has a generally useful life. The world is littered with solar and battery ideas that were just about perfect, but their limitations prevent them from coming to market. This is on the "wait and see" pile.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Where are you seeing these claimed lifespans? Everything I've read about perovskite includes short life as a major limitation. There are many efforts to get around this, some promising, but I haven't read that it is a solved issue.
I'm not saying these issues won't be resolved, but I think this is a bit of cart before the horse thinking. The Canon stuff, and other articles talk about improving the lifespan, but I don't see any 20-40 years stuff using cheap easy to produce methods. Improved lifespan claims on something that has a really short life doesn't necessarily mean it now has a generally useful life. The world is littered with solar and battery ideas that were just about perfect, but their limitations prevent them from coming to market. This is on the "wait and see" pile.
I do really enjoy geeking out over new tech. I do get distracted by various political crusades but I do keep coming back to technology as a place to learn without raising my blood pressure.
I had really not paid attention to the perovskite option until I saw the Canon announcement and their material does not talk about lead at all. They just describe the "perovskite layer".
And, of course, the Canon innovation is not the only one. There are the perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells that are also really interesting because they are shattering energy capture records by being able to hit 27-33%.
I think with this many countries and independent groups putting as much money and brainpower at the problem that we are likely to see results in the next few years instead of in the next decades. It is definitely the kind of breakthrough that will pull peak oil demand forward if they can get it to mass production.
