Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Looch City]

India and China....populations that account for one third of the entire population of the world are still emerging markets.

Yeah fossil fuel usage will be going up, not down.

[temple5]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhh leaving the country and completely removing any incentive for the federal government to try to force the other provinces to play nicely is easily the dumbest idea out there.

Wouldnt the incentive from a separation angle then be instead of putting money into equalization which Alberta gets zero return on investment, Alberta would instead use that money to simply pay Canada, BC, or the US for the use of the pipeline?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yes but that doesn't look to me like we're becoming more dependent on oil. The share of oil consumption is declining globally, that's almost definitionally saying that we're becoming *less* dependent.

Are you trying to say the world is using less oil per person? If not, then i'm lost.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I think OECD countries have already peaked or will peak in the next 2 years. Globally, the peak very much depends on kind of infrastructure investment in China and India. Probably 2030.

The key indicator to watch for is EV sales, right now they're 0.6% of total sales in the U.S. The velocity of that increase will matter greatly, if it gets to 1.2% in the next 5 years the peak in oil consumption will soon follow.

Sounds like speculation.

I don't know why you would think all of a sudden people would get into ev's. Ev's have been on the market for over a decade and the increase is slow. The only thing that would get enormous amounts of people into ev's are ridiculously high gas prices. However i don't see oil corporations just letting that happen. There's a lot of greedy people out there, until that changes i think we're stuck with oil.

Let's assume everybody get's a 100% ev tomorrow. That would still only reduce oil demand by 44%.





Curious.org.au

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Yeah its really dropping like a meteor.

This exact graph is why I shake my head when people say we should replace oil with renewables.

Renewables first target is coal. Because they nearly perfect substitutes for one another. The primary energy form that both produce is electricity. I'm not saying its as simple as a bunch of brownfield coal plant replacements, but the backbone of the grid is already there.

Oil, on the other hand, is primarily used to generate kinetic energy. To transform renewable energy sources into kinetic energy will take a massive infrastructure overhaul to get solar rays and moving air molecules transformed into kinetic energy in my car. Hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions?) of infrastructure.

Then add on the fact that coal is a massive (the largest?) source of CO2 emissions.

Tinordi, why is oil your target for renewables? Why doesn't it make more sense to target coal first?

[stampsx2]

There's currently no good environmentally sound energy replacement. The quickest switch would be coal, however replacing it with anything causes different environmental concerns, hydro dams - flooding, wind farms - birds, nuclear - carbon rods and water.

If everyone switched to ev's we'd have a battery disposal problem.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

This exact graph is why I shake my head when people say we should replace oil with renewables.

Renewables first target is coal. Because they nearly perfect substitutes for one another. The primary energy form that both produce is electricity. I'm not saying its as simple as a bunch of brownfield coal plant replacements, but the backbone of the grid is already there.

Oil, on the other hand, is primarily used to generate kinetic energy. To transform renewable energy sources into kinetic energy will take a massive infrastructure overhaul to get solar rays and moving air molecules transformed into kinetic energy in my car. Hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions?) of infrastructure.

Then add on the fact that coal is a massive (the largest?) source of CO2 emissions.

Tinordi, why is oil your target for renewables? Why doesn't it make more sense to target coal first?

Because people don't see "big coal".

Who knows a coal miner? Or someone that works in the coal patch? Does coal have pipelines that are easy to protest? Are there movies written about evil coal companies, or theories about war plots and terrorist funding via coal companies?

Car's don't run on coal byproduct. Everyone wants to see cars running off something clean, not ironically the plants that would generate whatever would power the gas run car replacement. People also have a gripe with gas prices ingrained in them. It then is easy to link the gas in your car with oil companies (big oil) and hate them.

Are the middle east countries and other nations that we look down upon (Russia, Venezuela, etc.) big coal exporters?

Somehow oil become the de facto sexy target... So why would it be rational to start with the worst perpetrator?

Every coal plant produced bit of power should be replaced by Nuclear and NG. Then we should work on everything else.

Or at least that's what I interpret.

[stampsx2]

Ya can you imagine if Leonardo de Caprio announced he is against coal power plants instead of tar sands?

[photon]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

And yet the overall demand is increasing.

Overall demand could increase while at the same time the dependance on oil could be decreasing. You'd have to adjust for overall demand for energy; i.e. what percentage of total global energy usage does fossil fuels make up? If that's decreasing, then dependence on oil is decreasing. I have no idea of the actual numbers, but that's what decreasing dependence would mean to me.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Ya can you imagine if Leonardo de Caprio announced he is against coal power plants instead of tar sands?

It's a lot easier to attack friendly Canadians over a much larger problem that has a local base as well. Or an extremism exporting untouchable "ally".

[photon]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Ya can you imagine if Leonardo de Caprio announced he is against coal power plants instead of tar sands?

Hah, someone should have told him about how much of Alberta's energy comes from coal.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I think OECD countries have already peaked or will peak in the next 2 years. Globally, the peak very much depends on kind of infrastructure investment in China and India. Probably 2030.

The key indicator to watch for is EV sales, right now they're 0.6% of total sales in the U.S. The velocity of that increase will matter greatly, if it gets to 1.2% in the next 5 years the peak in oil consumption will soon follow.

Hrmmm, ok lets look at data...
http://electricdrive.org/index.php?h...0952/pid/20952
So we see total vehicle sales increasing about 1 million per year, and for the past 3 years electric drive sales decreasing or staying flat, so the overall percentage is actually decreasing. Some velocity!

EV's still have big challenges to overcome, probably the key being the battery, becuase that dictates a lot of the cost, range and usable vehicle life. Once one of these battery breakthroughs makes it to market, then we might see some movement. As it is, it makes very little sense for the average consumer to buy an EV.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by photon

Overall demand could increase while at the same time the dependance on oil could be decreasing. You'd have to adjust for overall demand for energy; i.e. what percentage of total global energy usage does fossil fuels make up? If that's decreasing, then dependence on oil is decreasing. I have no idea of the actual numbers, but that's what decreasing dependence would mean to me.

Fairly easy to see:

you may have to really squint to make out wind and solar. Clearly overall consumption of fossil fuels is increasing faster than renewables. Renewables are adding to the energy mix, not replacing them.

[PeteMoss]

Anyone who thinks people aren't after coal more than oil is in a bubble.

Coal plants are being shutdown throughout North America and other places in the world. Very few people are saying to shut down oil developments.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by photon

Overall demand could increase while at the same time the dependance on oil could be decreasing. You'd have to adjust for overall demand for energy; i.e. what percentage of total global energy usage does fossil fuels make up? If that's decreasing, then dependence on oil is decreasing. I have no idea of the actual numbers, but that's what decreasing dependence would mean to me.

I don't see it. If coal consumption goes down by 2% but oil consumption goes up by 5% the net fossil fuel usage has increased and so has oil.

To me demand = dependance

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Anyone who thinks people aren't after coal more than oil is in a bubble.

Coal plants are being shutdown throughout North America and other places in the world. Very few people are saying to shut down oil developments.

Got something to back that claim up? Haven't been hearing about china or india reducing coal plants.

[Tinordi]

Renewables are replacing coal basically right now in most of the important coal burning countries US, China, Germany.

It's not enough to say that renewables are small therefore don't matter.

What matters is the rate of change are where on the asymptote you may be. In the IEA they say that you need 620 GW of new renewables by 2020 to be on a 2 degree (low carbon) energy transition. With all the contracted development agreements and policies announced as of 2015 the IEA estimates that we'll build 550 GW of renewables by 2020. And that was before the production tax credit was extended in the US. Many serious financial and energy analysts are very confident we'll blow by the 620 target to over 700 GW by 2020. So yes, renewables are ramping hugely. And I would remind you the 620 GW target is for their low carbon 2 degree warming scenario. We're well on pace to stride past it. This is the energy transition.

Further, there's just ridiculous straw men being thrown around here. No serious person is saying that we should replace oil with renewables. Oil and fossil fuels still have a significant share of energy consumption in many low carbon reduction scenarios. Oil's share is typically around 20% in a low carbon world.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Renewables are replacing coal basically right now in most of the important coal burning countries US, China, Germany.

It's not enough to say that renewables are small therefore don't matter.

What matters is the rate of change are where on the asymptote you may be. In the IEA they say that you need 620 GW of new renewables by 2020 to be on a 2 degree (low carbon) energy transition. With all the contracted development agreements and policies announced as of 2015 the IEA estimates that we'll build 550 GW of renewables by 2020. And that was before the production tax credit was extended in the US. Many serious financial and energy analysts are very confident we'll blow by the 620 target to over 700 GW by 2020. So yes, renewables are ramping hugely. And I would remind you the 620 GW target is for their low carbon 2 degree warming scenario. We're well on pace to stride past it. This is the energy transition.

Further, there's just ridiculous straw men being thrown around here. No serious person is saying that we should replace oil with renewables. Oil and fossil fuels still have a significant share of energy consumption in many low carbon reduction scenarios. Oil's share is typically around 20% in a low carbon world.

Care to respond to some of the other posts? You're making statements but ignoring the disscussion.

As for your last post, what are these new renewables and what impact will they have on the environment? Are they reducing the carbon footprint only to cause mass flooding and habitat loss or are we going to see solar panels on every rooftop?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Got something to back that claim up? Haven't been hearing about china or india reducing coal plants.

I didn't specify China or India - but here -
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...curb-pollution

Beijing plans to cut annual coal consumption by 13 million metric tons by 2017 from the 2012 level in a bid to slash the concentration of pollutants.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...curb-pollution

China will stop approving new coal mines for the next three years and continue to trim production capacity as the world’s biggest energy consumer tries to shift away from the fuel as it grapples with pollution.
China will suspend the approval of new mines starting in 2016 and will cut coal’s share of its energy consumption to 62.6 percent next year, from 64.4 percent now,

India is well behind China in its development phase - so don't really see anything there.

I was more talking about Canada/US/Europe in my statement but China is starting the process to fix their pollution woes.

[Fuzz]

Renewables are replacing coal in China? Really? I'd love to see the stats on that one...
http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...building-them/