Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Faust

Why The Marcellus Shale Play Could Spell The End For Canadian Natural Gas:

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/20...n-natural-gas/

Clark and the other navel gazing morons in BC killed us and themselves. The west coast LNG terminals will never be built because we prefer to consult with extortionists for the better part of a decade while the world passes us by.

[Tinordi]

Yep that terrible solar PV, Locke on Calgarypuck, has got it all figured out contrary to the hundred billion dollar solar PV industry, the scientists and researchers who have concluded that solar's lifecycle environmental footprint is less than half of other fossil fuels and a key component to the low carbon energy transition.

Renewable electricity made up 55% of global capacity additions in 2014. Of the 657 GW of variable renewables added globally last year solar PV made up a quarter of that new power capacity.

Utility scale solar PV costs have fallen by 50% since 2010. Yes from $4 per watt to $2.

The actual models that you decry being so expensive have dropped from $4 in 2007 to $0.50 in 2015 and is expected to drop to $0.35 in 2017.

But hey don't take it from me, take it from the IEA:

The cost of producing electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind has dropped significantly over the past five years, narrowing the gap with power generated from fossil fuels and nuclear reactors, according to the International Energy Agency.
“The costs of renewable technologies -- in particular solar photovoltaic -- have declined significantly over the past five years,” the Paris-based IEA said in a report called Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. “These technologies are no longer cost outliers.”
The median cost of producing so-called baseload power that is available all the time from natural gas, coal and atomic plants was about $100 a megawatt-hour for 2015 compared with about $200 for solar, which dropped from $500 in 2010. Those costs take into account investment, fuel, maintenance and dismantling of the installations over their lifetimes and vary widely between countries and plants. For instance, commercial rooftop solar installations generate power for $311.77 a megawatt-hour in Belgium and $166.70 in sunnier Spain, the findings show.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...rease-iea-says

In any case, we're done here. You're evidently incapable of actually discussing this without some angry vague verbiage to satisfy your priors that renewables are "bad". While you shake your fist at the clouds and peter12 thanks you for it, the renewable industry, governments, and the entire power system will thunder ahead. As the IEA projects, renewables to be the largest source of generation globally by 2035.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yeah - remember we must consider all upstream emissions and pollution as well!

Consider that a lot of the solar panels are currently being made in China, where they literally dump rare earth metals into the river, and use electricity from the dirtiest coal power you can find.

It's quite sad,

I just talked to a guy who came back from China and he says the pollution is so bad there that people feel like they always have a cold or flu. The chinese government doesn't care a whole lot and speaking out against the government to the media will get you sent to jail or worse. He said he can't remember cancer rates being as bad as they are now in China. Granted it's just one opinion.

I told him China has already approved 150 new coal burning power plants that will have the equivallent carbon footprint of brazil. He said to make things worse they burn cheap coal that produces even more carbon than the good stuff.

But let's keep focusing on the oilsands cause abolishing them will do next to nothing on a world scale.

I'm starting to think environmentalists have no clue where the real problem lies or are too scared to do anything about it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yep that terrible solar PV, Locke on Calgarypuck, has got it all figured out contrary to the hundred billion dollar solar PV industry, the scientists and researchers who have concluded that solar's lifecycle environmental footprint is less than half of other fossil fuels and a key component to the low carbon energy transition.

Renewable electricity made up 55% of global capacity additions in 2014. Of the 657 GW of variable renewables added globally last year solar PV made up a quarter of that new power capacity.

Utility scale solar PV costs have fallen by 50% since 2010. Yes from $4 per watt to $2.

The actual models that you decry being so expensive have dropped from $4 in 2007 to $0.50 in 2015 and is expected to drop to $0.35 in 2017.

But hey don't take it from me, take it from the IEA:



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...rease-iea-says

In any case, we're done here. You're evidently incapable of actually discussing this without some angry vague verbiage to satisfy your priors that renewables are "bad". While you shake your fist at the clouds and peter12 thanks you for it, the renewable industry, governments, and the entire power system will thunder ahead. As the IEA projects, renewables to be the largest source of generation globally by 2035.

Ha! You're right, we are done but because you are using righteous indignation to ignore the fact that I raised, what, 6 different issues concerning solar power and you kind of responded to one. A little.

But yeah, I'm the one who cant hold a reasonable discussion.

At least you managed...one post in response. Thats got to be a record for you. Usually you just disappear.

[Regorium]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ility-ranking/

China has already seen a backlash. Panel manufacturer Jinko Solar, for example, has faced protests and legal action since one of its plants, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, was accused of dumping toxic waste into a nearby river.

That won't make it into a GHG emissions report though.

To be honest, you're right, I'm in the dark. I can't give you an exact comparison of the environmental impact of a solar panel vs. O&G. The problem lies mainly in that the numbers for solar panel manufacturing doesn't exist - the entire industry is unregulated and unmonitored. On the other hand, I can give you the exact numbers for O&G - especially in Canada, because we have insanely strict reporting rules and regulatory oversight.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

It's quite sad,

I just talked to a guy who came back from China and he says the pollution is so bad there that people feel like they always have a cold or flu. The chinese government doesn't care a whole lot and speaking out against the government to the media will get you sent to jail or worse. He said he can't remember cancer rates being as bad as they are now in China. Granted it's just one opinion.

I told him China has already approved 150 new coal burning power plants that will have the equivallent carbon footprint of brazil. He said to make things worse they burn cheap coal that produces even more carbon than the good stuff.

But let's keep focusing on the oilsands cause abolishing them will do next to nothing on a world scale.

I'm starting to think environmentalists have no clue where the real problem lies or are too scared to do anything about it.

Its funny, because I was reading on the reduction targets that Canada committed to at that Paris conference (Which probably generated more carbon then Canada does in a year).

And the commitment which was created by Harper (that evil #######) and then adopted fully by Trudeau talks about a reduction of 30% below 2005 levels, which when you look at the above charts you have to wonder where the cuts come from.

It basically means that we would have to kill the Oil and Gas sector, reduce transportation and knock down a bunch of buildings, oh and ignore the fact that Canada's population has increased, and that we have winter.

Or Trudeau can do what Chretien did

Commit to it, ignore it and pass it on to the next government.

I would like to see a comprehensive environmental strategy against the one that seems to be overly obsessed with carbon emissions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Regorium

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ility-ranking/



That won't make it into a GHG emissions report though.

To be honest, you're right, I'm in the dark. I can't give you an exact comparison of the environmental impact of a solar panel vs. O&G. The problem lies mainly in that the numbers for solar panel manufacturing doesn't exist - the entire industry is unregulated and unmonitored. On the other hand, I can give you the exact numbers for O&G - especially in Canada, because we have insanely strict reporting rules and regulatory oversight.

Its China man, they haven't seen a book, accounting or reporting that they can't effectively cook or lie in, I think they're freakishly good at Enron accounting.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Locke

I probably should. And I dont consider it 'abject cynicism' I consider it 'informed opinion.'

"Solar has the highest net energy return!!!"

Yeah, only if you totally 'Tyler Dellow' all the statistics.

I've actually seen the process involved in actually manufacturing solar panels and batteries and it is unbelievable. It is horrendously toxic and ridiculously oil-intensive. Its as though people have no concept of how much oil and toxic chemicals are involved in the process of manufacturing a solar panel or how many rare-earth and toxic minerals and materials are involved in producing a solar battery just to harmlessly collect the beautiful rays of the sun and do pretty much absolutely nothing with it.

So yeah, solar power is awesomesauce if you ignore the fact that its incredibly expensive and can only be accomplished via government subsidies, its incredibly toxic and dangerous to manufacture, it requires the highest amount of constant monitoring and maintenance, it generates very little actual energy and what it does generate is difficult to store in any ecological or efficient capacity or transport to where its required and it has to have a constant backup system which is typically fossil-fuel based.

Brilliant. Where do we sign up?

Caveman mentality. Solar energy is becoming more and more efficient burning of oil is not and is a dead end. Also the actual lifecycle carbon footprint of solar is much better than you claim. BTW solar energy can be used to make solar panels try making oil using oil.


source

[Locke]

Originally Posted by zamler

Caveman mentality. Solar energy is becoming more and more efficient burning of oil is not and is a dead end. Also the actual lifecycle carbon footprint of solar is much better than you claim. BTW solar energy can be used to make solar panels try making oil using oil.


source

Its not a 'caveman mentality.'

Solar doesnt generate enough net energy for its cost.

I'm not saying that we should burn oil forever, thats hilariously misguided, but that is not my point.

All I've said is that trotting solar power out as some sort of viable and renewable alternative is straight up misinformed.

[GaiJin]

Our $100,000 solar heated truck wash at work that never worked, got replaced by a 800.00 Home Depot hot water tank. Yay solar.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by zamler

Caveman mentality. Solar energy is becoming more and more efficient burning of oil is not and is a dead end. Also the actual lifecycle carbon footprint of solar is much better than you claim. BTW solar energy can be used to make solar panels try making oil using oil.


source

Wait...what?

We haven't improved the efficiency of how we burn oil?

Compared to when?

[accord1999]

This Calgarian's highly detail account of their solar installation shows the limitations of solar due to Calgary's location.

http://imgur.com/a/aJ4BG

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Wait, so they're on a fixed rate plan with a solar installation?

If they're seeing most of their power sales during peak times during the summer, then wouldn't it make more sense to be on a floating rate plan? They claim sunset is a problem...

Edit: so it seems that Enmax floating rates are adjusted monthly. That seems like a bit of a problem. People with solar installations aren't receiving fair value for their power.

[accord1999]

The thing is peak solar generation is noon in the summer but peak electricity demand is usually in the late afternoon to mid evening. And in a lot of places, winter electricity usage is also higher than summer usage (and definitely higher than spring and autumn).

So a rate that doesn't float with time of day is actually beneficial to solar owners because they generate electricity when demand is relatively low but buy it back when demand is relatively high. But ultimately, the real problem with solar is that other than using hydro, there's no cost effective way to store electricity. In the example they produce a lot of excess electricity in the summer but run a huge deficit in December. A single homeowner benefits from having Enmax as a very reliable battery to overcome this problem, but it's much harder at the utility level.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wait...what?

We haven't improved the efficiency of how we burn oil?

Best fuel burning power plant is at what 70%? Or maybe it is as high as 80% not sure but that doesn't leave much room for improvement which is why I called it a dead end. Commercial crystalline cells are about 15% efficient, in the lab the best cells are getting 40% or more so a long way to go.

As for people saying solar does not pay off in energy output this is not true. Energy payback for solar is between 1-3 years two to three decades ago it was 10 years or more. This is a good read to start and there is a wealth of info out there if people care to delve into it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by zamler

Best fuel burning power plant is at what 70%? Or maybe it is as high as 80% not sure but that doesn't leave much room for improvement which is why I called it a dead end.

More like 45% for pure electricity (which is close to the theoretical maximum), but with co-generation it can get up around 90%.

CO2 efficiency can be improved without improving thermal efficiency through carbon capture technologies.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by accord1999

This Calgarian's highly detail account of their solar installation shows the limitations of solar due to Calgary's location.

http://imgur.com/a/aJ4BG

So enmax's solar energy program is a bust. Won't be getting that then. Solar isn't ready. The technology isn't there yet. I łike the bonus feature at the end.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

So enmax's solar energy program is a bust. Won't be getting that then. Solar isn't ready. The technology isn't there yet. I łike the bonus feature at the end.

Different things work in different parts of the country at different times of the year.You would need a mix of wind mills solar and geothermal to run a house in Calgary.

[trew]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

So enmax's solar energy program is a bust. Won't be getting that then. Solar isn't ready. The technology isn't there yet. I łike the bonus feature at the end.

That doesn't look like a particularly great installation (on a flat roof, probably more E than S facing, judging by the shadows in the picture).

True south facing with a 45 deg slope should give him more like 300-400 kw in the winter months, which would make a big difference to the economics.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by trew

True south facing with a 45 deg slope should give him more like 300-400 kw in the winter months, which would make a big difference to the economics.

As a roofer I can assure you the number of roofs in this city which fit your specifications are approximately 0%. I'm not sure the improbable scenario is what you should be using to try to justify economics.