Does the Fraser Institute post blatantly false data? Or do they selectively choose and frame facts in order to further their agenda - like a whole host of other organizations do to further their agendas?
I regard the reports of the Fraser Institute with a skeptical eye. But I regard the reports by the Parkland Institute, Greenpeace, and every other advocacy group the same way. They all employ and manipulate information in the service of an agenda.
If they are saying we get 40% of our power from coal, that's demonstrably false. They do it on tax stuff all the time, ignoring how marginal tax rates actually work.
If they are saying we get 40% of our power from coal, that's demonstrably false. They do it on tax stuff all the time, ignoring how marginal tax rates actually work.
I wouldn't be surprised if reality dictates otherwise (or if these figures speak to "max capacity" despite not saying it) but the Canada Energy Regulator government website does state a figure around that.
About 91% of electricity in Alberta is produced from fossil fuels – approximately 43% from coal and 49% from natural gas. The remaining 8% is produced from renewables, such as wind, hydro, and biomass (Figure 3).
Alberta’s coal fleet is the largest in Canada and has a total capacity of 5 555 MW. Coal-fired generation is scheduled to be gradually phased out by 2030 under Alberta’s Climate Change legislation.
Their stats are from 2018....have things materially changed since? And I ask because maybe they have.
I wouldn't be surprised if reality dictates otherwise (or if these figures speak to "max capacity" despite not saying it) but the Canada Energy Regulator government website does state a figure around that.
Their stats are from 2018....have things materially changed since? And I ask because maybe they have.
Yes, I went looking at Wikipedia, they used to list the old plants and the year they were decommissioned but don't appear to do that anymore. But we have reduced coal since 2018. Current numbers can be found here:
The report, done in 2021, lists data from 2017. Like, why even bother with your report on an energy transition if your basis is on outdated data? You may as well be extrapolating the Space Race to show we'd be landing people on Pluto by now. But this is how these people work.
Watched a segment on BNN this morning about a young Canadian start-up company planting trees in deforested or devastated remote areas from drones. What a great idea!
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
It's relevant to know that renewables have work to do in order to be the best most healthy solution for all of us. But stating that they are bad too is not an argument in favor of slowing the move away from carbon, it's just an attempted distraction by those without defenses remaining.
It's relevant to know that renewables have work to do in order to be the best most healthy solution for all of us. But stating that they are bad too is not an argument in favor of slowing the move away from carbon, it's just an attempted distraction by those without defenses remaining.
F no, man. F no.
Extrapolate those material and land consumption intensities to a level where renewables are contributing meaningfully to the grid and you’ll understand what kind of hell this argument is working to avoid.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
Extrapolate those material and land consumption intensities to a level where renewables are contributing meaningfully to the grid and you’ll understand what kind of hell this argument is working to avoid.
Having worked in O&G, I’ve heard 20 years of arguments from those against renewables. Literally every single one has been: “look at what’s happening now, extrapolate it 20 years out and it’s a disaster”.
It’s been wrong all along, and in fact is a really lazy argument in general, but an especially terrible argument in tech.
Anytime you have rapid innovation, then the worst assumption you can make is that a current state will persist without change in the future as usage grows dramatically.
While general commercializations will drive enormous efficiencies in renewables, added to this there is so much investment going into solving the environmental problems, efficiency, battery issues that the only certainty is all will improve dramatically.
We are still early days, and the pace of innovation and change in renewables will be enormous.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to marsplasticeraser For This Useful Post:
Extrapolate those material and land consumption intensities to a level where renewables are contributing meaningfully to the grid and you’ll understand what kind of hell this argument is working to avoid.
It'll be less than continued FF extraction. It actually takes less land than is being used for oil, gas, and coal extraction.
As for the cobalt video, it's more than a bit silly to point at the energy transition as a reason for worsening of the cobalt trade. Currently the most common uses for cobalt are for small electronics and computing, and, you guessed it, fossil fuel processing. Most EV batteries will contain little or zero cobalt in the future anyways. It's really hypocritical to suggest future tech will exploit unethical practices when the current extractive FF industry is doing the same stuff.
The misinformation about this stuff is staggering and a lot of it is paid for directly by these foundations funded by O&G companies (eg Fraser Institute).
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 11-02-2021 at 09:06 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
That video is pretty much the equivalent of me using these images to say that all Oil and Gas is bad. Now extrapolate this to the present (oops it is), but is it representative of all O&G? Probably not.
Anyways I think I will call this collage of images "The Toxic Cost of Not Going Green"
Spoiler!
Are renewables perfect? No. Is the energy transition going to be easy? No. Are those reasons to say "shut down all clean tech"? No.
An energy transition needs to happen if we want to continue living on this planet and enjoying our current quality of life.
This thread was doing a really good job of talking about facts, technology, and discussing the barriers to an energy transition rather than emotional arguments for/against Oil and Gas. Can we all agree to keep it that way?
Last edited by Torture; 11-02-2021 at 10:07 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Torture For This Useful Post:
The energy transition will eventually happen for economic reasons(eventually it will all be cheaper/less messy/more rleiable) but it has a long way to go. Petroleum is just so far ahead of most sources on it's availability and energy density.
I mean look at Tesla, who from all accounts are world beaters at what they're doing.
The represent what, maybe 1% of car sales right now? Not even making a dent in actually reducing emissions.
And I say that as someone who is pretty high on their future.
We already have a plan to reduce emissions. Nuclear power. And in the short term until we have the plants up and running, we go crazy with natural gas.
Hell, I'd imagine if the government actually got serious about natural gas, we could reduce emissions quite a bit, and burn whatever is flared to mine bitcoin.
Power generation is a bit of a red herring for almost all of Canada outside of the prairies. Over 80% of Canada's electricity generation is Hydro/Nuclear/Wind/Solar/other renewables, and about 75% of Canada's combustible fuel power generation is happening in just Alberta and Saskatchewan (and a significant and increasing majority of that is from gas).
So talking about natural gas and nuclear as magic bullets is kind of misplaced for Canada, at least until we have the technology to electrify heavy industry, agriculture, oil & gas production, etc. SMRs can help with some of that (particularly heavy industry and a portion of its heat requirements), but they're still in their infancy right now.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
If every car in Canada was electric could we realistically improve the grid to handle it? Elon Musk has said if every car was an EV the grid would have to double in capacity. Is that feasible?
Call me crazy but we should be producing oil as much as possible and using the revenue to become a world leader in clean energy. The amount of oil used globally will not change if Canada stops producing it, so why not leverage the resource?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
If every car in Canada was electric could we realistically improve the grid to handle it? Elon Musk has said if every car was an EV the grid would have to double in capacity. Is that feasible?
Call me crazy but we should be producing oil as much as possible and using the revenue to become a world leader in clean energy. The amount of oil used globally will not change if Canada stops producing it, so why not leverage the resource?
Yeah I’ve been dreaming of this for a decade. AB could have been bank rolling Nuclear tech with oil sales, and they’d be an even bigger cash cow now than they were before. It’s like dreaming about the centre Iginla never had, it just makes me sad now. Huge miss.
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
