Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Gasoline demand has trended down in the U.S. for the past eight years and in Europe for the past ten, for fundamental and durable reasons of technology, urban form, shifting values, and superior ways to get mobility and access. Suppliers have invested to supply more oil than customers want to buy. Had crimped budgets not curtailed investment budgets, oil companies would still be building pre-stranded production assets as fast as they could.

8 years ago was the beginning of the Great Recession in North America, which did lead to a sudden drop in gas demand, which has begun to recover.



In addition, it's misleading to talk of gasoline demand in Europe, where due to tax and regulatory reasons, diesel cars have grown to have significant/majority share throughout the Eurozone.

[peter12]

Can someone make a list of the true things Tinordi has said in this thread? I just feel that there are so few, I want to give whatever credit he is due before I totally write him off.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Didactic but interesting column by Amory Lovins on the oil industry in terminal decline:

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_02_01_...s_disadvantage

If you believe this than climate regulation is unnecessary.

If market forces will out-compete oil within 15 years (which is possible but not likely) then why bother spending a bunch of time and energy trying to regulate it away?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

It's not about mpg (this is Sierra club drivel), it's about efficiency. And modern cars are certainly way more efficient.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...arbonemissions

They don't mention the simplest factor which is weight. The Model T was 1200 lbs. The Ford Focus is twice that weight and has better MPG.

[CaptainCrunch]

And probably what 100's of times more powerful?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And probably what 100's of times more powerful?

Well the top speed on the car was like 70km/h.

My Mazda3 had a governor at 190.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is fascinating to me that you continue to focus on the solar as a financial loser argument when the majority of Locke's argument was the upstream environmental costs.

His assertion (he offered no data) was wrong but some of you don't seem to care you need to believe solar is a toxic sludge wasteland waiting to happen. Since hardly anyone cares to read here is the info from the link I posted.

The energy payback time (EPBT) describes the time span a PV system needs to operate in order to generate the same amount of energy that was used for its manufacture and installation. This energy amortization, given in years, is also referred to as break-even energy payback time. The EPBT depends vastly on the location where the PV system is installed (e.g. the amount of sunlight available) and on the efficiency of the system, namely the type of PV technology and the system's components.
In life-cycle analysis (LCA) from the 1990s, the energy payback time had often been cited to be as high as 10 years.[6] Although the time span already decreased to less than 3 years in the early 2000s,[7] the myth that "solar PV does not pay back the energy used to create it" seems to persists up to the present day.[8]

[Resolute 14]

I actually agree with you for the most part, Zamler. I don't know a ton about PV/solar, but what I do know is that the process has become much more efficient in the last few years. I do have a nitpick with your argument though. EPBT, I believe, doesn't really care about usable energy, just total energy. As already noted, solar tends to produce the most when the power is needed the least, and vice versa. So the calculations need to include either the additional (financial and environmental) cost of battery systems, or account for the fact that excess energy is basically worthless.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I actually agree with you for the most part, Zamler. I don't know a ton about PV/solar, but what I do know is that the process has become much more efficient in the last few years. I do have a nitpick with your argument though. EPBT, I believe, doesn't really care about usable energy, just total energy. As already noted, solar tends to produce the most when the power is needed the least, and vice versa. So the calculations need to include either the additional (financial and environmental) cost of battery systems, or account for the fact that excess energy is basically worthless.

This is the biggest hurdle with utility scale renewable programs. It's just not efficient when you look at peak and trough electricity usage - because a) you can't control it and because b) you can't store it efficiently. Solar and wind aren't competitive with gas, and they never will be until someone can solve the issue of economically storing electricity in large quantities. In which case this is all a moot point because from there we'll probably figure out how to harness and store electricity from storm systems which could easily power the entire globe 24/7.

People can point to Europe's renewable programs all they want as an example of successful development. Europe is broke and they've developed the industry with tax payer dollars and debt, which is basically a cheat code IMO and not the road to follow to mature our renewable industry.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by heep223

This is the biggest hurdle with utility scale renewable programs. It's just not efficient when you look at peak and trough electricity usage - because a) you can't control it and because b) you can't store it efficiently. Solar and wind aren't competitive with gas, and they never will be until someone can solve the issue of economically storing electricity in large quantities. In which case this is all a moot point because from there we'll probably figure out how to harness and store electricity from storm systems which could easily power the entire globe 24/7.

People can point to Europe's renewable programs all they want as an example of successful development. Europe is broke and they've developed the industry with tax payer dollars and debt, which is basically a cheat code IMO and not the road to follow to mature our renewable industry.

I think the only current renewable that could viably replace fossil fuels for electricity generation is nuclear. I have a tough time believing that wind and solar can come close to meeting our current needs, much less our ever expanding future needs. There are many interesting TED talks on the subject of nuclear power.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by peter12

Can someone make a list of the true things Tinordi has said in this thread? I just feel that there are so few, I want to give whatever credit he is due before I totally write him off.

Sure, lets have it. Why not start with the untrue things I've said.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You might get farther if you stopped pouting and stomping your feet any time someone dared not to take you at your word.

It is fascinating to me that you continue to focus on the solar as a financial loser argument when the majority of Locke's argument was the upstream environmental costs. Given how hardcore of an environmentalist you seem to paint yourself as being, it is rather interesting to see you continually ignore the elephant in the room to focus on the mouse.

However, responding to one of your sets of figures, I would appreciate it if you show your work with respects to your EROEI figures. Because most of what I am finding online suggests "oil and gas" at >11-15 for Canada (depending on whether you look at conventional only, or include oil sands), up to over 30 for other jurisdictions that still have easily extractable oil. You, of course, specifically noted "synthetic crude", which is obviously different. And knowing you, that specific usage was not accidental. The various tables I have seen put solar pv in wide ranges noting anywhere from 3.5 to 12, though the most common forms of solar pv used today trend toward the high end of that range.

So what you're saying is that you agree with me?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by karl262

I think the only current renewable that could viably replace fossil fuels for electricity generation is nuclear. I have a tough time believing that wind and solar can come close to meeting our current needs, much less our ever expanding future needs. There are many interesting TED talks on the subject of nuclear power.

I think nuclear power is probably the baseload of the 21st century, but I don't think it could reasonably be called renewable. It doesn't have CO2 emissions, but that's not the same thing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So what you're saying is that you agree with me?

What I am saying is that you are being disingenuous - as usual - by deliberately focusing on a low-end figure for oil and a high-end figure for solar. That should surprise nobody here, as nobody picks cherries quite like you.

[Fuzz]

Nuclear is a tough sell in some countries. I think anywhere it is viable like in Canada and US natural gas is going to handle a lot of the baseload where Hydro isn't available.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

What I am saying is that you are being disingenuous - as usual - by deliberately focusing on a low-end figure for oil and a high-end figure for solar. That should surprise nobody here, as nobody picks cherries quite like you.

Not being disingenuous at all. I'm pointing to two different fuel sources. My argument is responding to the claim that solar was a loser because it's net energy returns are so low.

I pointed out that its higher than the syncrude coming out of the upgrades in northern Alberta. You're inferring the rest.

[Resolute 14]

No, you went from speaking against oil in general to focusing on one single aspect of Canada's oil industry because it became convenient for you to present a misleading argument.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think nuclear power is probably the baseload of the 21st century, but I don't think it could reasonably be called renewable. It doesn't have CO2 emissions, but that's not the same thing.

The CO2 thing is just a bonus, but spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and used again in new reactors.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Nuclear is a tough sell in some countries. I think anywhere it is viable like in Canada and US natural gas is going to handle a lot of the baseload where Hydro isn't available.

Right, very true. I'm just saying that if the goal is to get off of burning and emitting pollution then nuclear power is a very strong candidate. France is a good example of this.

[Resolute 14]

The problem with nuclear is the politics of it. Especially after Fukushima.