Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 07-05-2017, 04:34 AM   #421
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

^^^ if you count gas/electric hybrids as cars that don't use gas
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:08 AM   #422
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Ya, "mild hybrids" are a pretty big cop-out on that one. As far as I understand that can be as little as using a motor on the belt drive to give a small boost in power, or using it to keep a turbo spinning. Most manufacturers are going to have to use some sort of mild hybrid to get to fuel efficiency standards.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 03:51 PM   #423
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Ya, "mild hybrids" are a pretty big cop-out on that one. As far as I understand that can be as little as using a motor on the belt drive to give a small boost in power, or using it to keep a turbo spinning. Most manufacturers are going to have to use some sort of mild hybrid to get to fuel efficiency standards.
This misses the point. In a race to be ahead of the curve on things, yet another auto manufacturer is betting on more electric.
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 04:29 PM   #424
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus View Post
Volvo: Gas cars are history after 2019
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/05/auto...ine/index.html

The first major auto company to step out, We know who'll be last but Toyota, Nissan and Honda next?
You'd think our companies might want to swim with the stream here, no? Maybe start investing in electricity if that's the future. I dunno - all our eggs in fossil fuels probably isn't a good long term strategy. I just keep waiting for signs of this shift, haven't seen much, which makes me quite worried.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Old 07-05-2017, 04:30 PM   #425
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Most automakers will be having some sort of hybrid 48V system in the next few years to meet efficiency standards. I see this as mostly a PR move, though a good one. Lets not mistake this for what it is. Which is what most headlines have done.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-05-2017, 05:21 PM   #426
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
You'd think our companies might want to swim with the stream here, no? Maybe start investing in electricity if that's the future. I dunno - all our eggs in fossil fuels probably isn't a good long term strategy.
Coal and natural gas are the two dominant forms of electricity generation in the world.
accord1999 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 05:41 PM   #427
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
Coal and natural gas are the two dominant forms of electricity generation in the world.
And what is your point? That a few thousand sequestration points are more difficult to manage than a few hundred million? I have yet to meet anyone with a functioning brain to suggest that fossil fuels are going completely away. The goal is to get to an economy where they are marginalized and become a supporting fuel more so than the dominant source of power. We are on the verge of a battery technical breakthrough that will make the internal combustion engine a thing of the past, like oil lamps fueled by whale oil and gas lamps fueled by coal gas.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 05:57 PM   #428
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
I have yet to meet anyone with a functioning brain to suggest that fossil fuels are going completely away.
There are plenty, look at all the mayors who pledge their cities to 100% renewables in 15 years or so after the US pulled out of the Paris.

Quote:
We are on the verge of a battery technical breakthrough that will make the internal combustion engine a thing of the past, like oil lamps fueled by whale oil and gas lamps fueled by coal gas.
Wake me up when batteries are built on a level of more than a few GWh/year when human electricity consumption alone is more than 20,000 TWh/year. The economics of batteries, even at $100/KWh don't work with the intermittency of wind and solar and there is serious doubt about whether there's even enough cobalt to build all those batteries.

Last edited by accord1999; 07-05-2017 at 06:07 PM.
accord1999 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:10 PM   #429
Fozzie_DeBear
Wucka Wocka Wacka
 
Fozzie_DeBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East of the Rockies, West of the Rest
Exp:
Default

For me, it's not that the market has to be 100% electric or that renewable replace coal (which has little to do with the topic at hand)...the point is that a major source of demand for fossil fuels is upgrading away from a technology that is over 100 years old. This could, very reasonably, affect the viability of Alberta's current economic system sooner than many people are willing to admit.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan

"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Fozzie_DeBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:32 PM   #430
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

The question for Alberta should be at what point will increasing efficiencies and electrification plus increased production form extraction technoliges outpace increasing global demand for oil from population growth and economic expansion.

The equation isn't to complicated, it's getting the variables right. And once we reach the tipping point it is going to be fairly catastrophic for the oil industry(and Alberta's budget), as it is a delicate balance, as we have seen.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:51 PM   #431
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
The question for Alberta should be at what point will increasing efficiencies and electrification plus increased production form extraction technoliges outpace increasing global demand for oil from population growth and economic expansion.
Unfortunately for Alberta, that's already happened.

US shale oil extraction being a fundamental geopolitical security issue now has entrenched that future for Albertans and Canadians.
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2017, 08:49 AM   #432
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Sort of related to driverless technology, Google's DeepMind has opened it's first international AI research lab in Edmonton:

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...op-in-edmonton
Ozy_Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 09:23 AM   #433
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
Unfortunately for Alberta, that's already happened.

US shale oil extraction being a fundamental geopolitical security issue now has entrenched that future for Albertans and Canadians.
The ride is over, folks. Energy pricing is now an american security concern:

Quote:
Al Walker, chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. , said Wall Street has become an enabler that pushes companies to grow production at any cost, while punishing those that try to live within their means. At an investor conference last month in San Francisco, he implored shareholders to stop rewarding growth and start rewarding capital efficiency.

“The biggest problem our industry faces today is you guys,” he said. “You guys can help us help ourselves. It’s kind of like going to AA. You know, we need a partner. We really need the investment community to show discipline.”

The willingness of investors to subsidize shale losses—as long as they come with production growth—echoes investments in technology companies such as Amazon.com Inc. that lost money for a time before becoming profitable. Investors are betting on who can best weather the storm of low prices, and once it subsides, swing toward profits or growth that will fuel a rally in shares.

Even while losing money, many shale producers’ stock prices jumped in the second half of 2016 as they laid out plans to drill again. They were buoyed by eager anticipation from Wall Street, including a record $34 billion in cash from new equity, according to Dealogic.

Compensation practices play a role in the behavior of the U.S. shale producers: Most of their management teams are paid based on growth or adding new oil and gas reserves—not turning a profit—according to Matt Portillo, an analyst at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston. “Until that changes, growth may continue to prevail,” he said.

Surviving shale outfits say technology gains have helped them identify drilling opportunities that are economic at $40 oil—though similar claims in the recent past failed to pay off. Individual wells may make profits, but they often don’t translate into overall returns because of operating costs the producer exclude.

In 2016, when crude averaged $43 a barrel, about 30 of the biggest shale companies spent $1.58 in cash for every $1 they generated, according to FactSet. U.S. operators have lost a combined $130 billion since 2015.

Major global producers including Saudi Arabia have dialed down output in recent months to sop up the glut of crude sloshing around the market, only to watch shale companies step in to fill the void. By year’s end, U.S. output could set a record of 10 million barrels a day, according to government and bank projections.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-st...19801?mod=e2tw

Quote:
Foor months, American drivers have been greeted at gas stations with a pleasant surprise: Gas prices have fallen by half, dropping an average of more than $2 a gallon since their most recent peak in 2011. President Barack Obama took a moment to bask in the credit last week in his State of the Union speech: “Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad,” he said.

Or maybe it is. Behind that drop is an even bigger collapse in the price of oil, from more than $100 a barrel in 2014 to under $27 this week. On Tuesday, the Dow fell 250 points amid fears about what will happen if the price of oil continues its slump, which will have effects far beyond consumers, beyond even the global market.

Oil prices drive not just economics, but geopolitics. Alliances rise and fall over petroleum. Expensive oil props up governments in Russia and Iran, provides stability in Middle Eastern countries and also offers a revenue stream to extremist groups in Nigeria and Iraq. Domestically, high-priced oil spurs innovation in alternative energy; it has also driven America’s shale boom. For all these reasons and more, the collapsing value of oil will have profound consequences around the world, with the potential to destabilize regimes, remake regions and alter the global economy in lasting and unforeseen ways.

So as the global markets process the uncertainty ahead, Politico Magazine asked a panel of leading experts on energy, economics and geopolitics to tell us: As we cheer for cheap gas, what aftershocks should we be bracing for?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...quences-213550

Quote:
The Rise of the Russian Petro-Gas State

From less than 50 percent in the mid-1990s,[14] the share of commodities in Russian exports has grown to 70 percent today, with oil accounting for more than half of the export income.[15] Representing up to 30 percent of the country’s GDP and half of its GDP growth since 2000,[16] hydrocarbons provided at least half of the state’s budget revenues last year.[17] Five years ago, Russia needed oil prices of $50 to $55 a barrel to balance its budget, but Alexei Kudrin, former first deputy prime minister and finance minister, estimated the breakeven price at $117 per barrel last year.[18]

Russia’s dependence on energy exports—and, consequently, its economy’s vulnerability to commodity price fluctuation—was highlighted by the 2009 world financial crisis. As oil plunged from $147 to $34 per barrel, the resource-based economy contracted by almost 8 percent—the largest drop among the G20 top industrial nations.

Russia has begun to exhibit the signs of what economists call the “Dutch disease,” when overreliance on commodity exports depresses other sectors of the economy by starving them of investments and modernization while the increasing value of the national currency makes exports of other goods and services more expensive and thus less competitive in world markets. Industrial stagnation has even spread to the military-industrial complex, which, like in Soviet times, continues to be the state’s favorite sector and enjoys its continuous and very generous support. Despite this, according to a recent survey, only 20 percent of the Russian defense enterprise qualified as “modern.”[19]

As in virtually every other petro-gas state, the rise of the Russian one has been attended by corruption likely unprecedented even in the country’s far-from-pristine history. Venality and extortion have come close to
subverting or even paralyzing governance, social institutions, justice, and entrepreneurial activity. In Transparency International’s 2012 Corruption Perception Index, Russia was 133rd among 176 countries, worse than Belarus, Vietnam, and Sierra Leone and on par with Honduras, Iran, and Kazakhstan.[20]

Yet the most dangerous political legacy of the Russian petro-gas state is the centrality of oil and gas revenues, which amounted to $215 billion last year,[21] to the loyalty of two groups that are essential for the regime’s survival: the lower-income and elite segments. Trillion-ruble transfers help to maintain social peace in what is known as “Russia-2”[22]—poorer regions, especially the volatile and increasingly violent Muslim North Caucasus, small towns and rural areas, and the rusting “monotowns” (one-company towns) of Stalinist industrialization.[23]

The sporadic raising of meager pensions and salaries for the millions of Russians on the government payroll, including doctors and teachers (usually in the run-up to the Duma or presidential elections) is part of the same strategy. At the same time, oil and gas rents are a vital component in elite management under Putin’s neopatrimonial regime: a tacit but ironclad agreement between the Kremlin and the bureaucracies from top to bottom that permits the latter to enrich themselves at the treasury’s expense in exchange for their loyalty.

So long as the regime continues to regard export revenues as a palliative, if not a panacea, for economic, social, and political problems, they will impede or even obviate the need for economic and political modernization. “The problem of being a petro-state is that the natural resources trend corrupts the institutions,” said Sergei Guriev, rector of the New Economic School in Moscow and a leading expert on Russian political economy. “This is what is called the ‘resource curse.’ This is a trap, where democratic political and economic institutions do not develop because rents coming from natural resources provide incentives to the elite not to develop institutions.”[24]

Challenges to the Status Quo: Oil

But this status quo may not be sustainable indefinitely. After two decades of essentially living off the Soviet Union’s “legacy fields,” the “brownfields” (exploited deposits, as opposed to newly discovered ones, or “greenfields”) of western Siberia are “entering a long-term decline.”[25] Although Russia is not running out of oil, a leading expert believes it may be running out of cheap oil.[26] Instead, oil will have to be pumped from places that are “colder, deeper and more remote,”[27] such as the continental shelf in the Arctic, the ever more remote regions of eastern Siberia, the “deeper horizons” of western Siberia, or the Black Sea.[28]

“Although Russia is not running out of oil, a leading expert believes it may be running out of cheap oil.”Yet the enormous upfront investments that such an effort would require are hard to come by when taxes on oil companies’ profits have greatly reduced the incentive to invest in new technology and greenfield exploration. After they pay the profit tax, value-added tax, mineral extraction tax, asset tax, charges for the use of subsoil resources, mandatory contribution to social funds, and export duties, Russian oil companies are effectively taxed at a 70 percent rate.[29] (By comparison, in 2011, Chevron and ExxonMobil were taxed at an effective rate of 42–43 percent in the United States.[30])

This policy leaves massive capital and technology transfers from Western multinational corporations as the key to sustaining the present levels of oil production. Among the more notable of such ventures was ExxonMobil’s agreement last year to invest, in a joint venture with Rosneft, $3.2 billion into the exploration and development of the Black Sea and the Kara Sea in the Arctic. In addition, with Rosneft’s acquisition of TNK-BP, BP ended up with almost a 20 percent stake in the Russian company.[31] (Rosneft promptly proceeded to “borrow” $10 billion from TNK-BP subsidiaries, in the process effectively robbing minority shareholders who held shares in these firms.[32])

Yet such deals fall far short of what is needed to ensure Russia’s continued status as an “energy superpower,” and the barriers to large-scale Western investments are formidable, if not prohibitive. Shale oil and environmentally “cleaner” liquefied natural gas (LNG) will likely push down oil prices, making greenfield investments less profitable. The worsening of relations between Russia and the West increases the risks as well. Then there is the 2008 law that restricts foreign control over companies operating in Russia’s “strategic industries” (certainly including oil and gas), in effect banning non-Russian energy firms from a majority ownership of any significant venture. (In the ExxonMobil-Rosneft deal, ExxonMobil owns only one-third of the venture.) Last but far from least, there is the memory of the Russian government’s forcing Royal Dutch Shell in 2006 to give up a controlling stake in its liquefied gas production project, known as Sakhalin-2, after Royal Dutch Shell and other members of the consortium had invested $9–11 billion in the venture over 12 years.
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-...n-oil-and-gas/

Quote:
On September 3, President Obama proclaimed that “Russia is paying a price” due to sanctions imposed by the U.S., the European Union, and other partners. The president failed to acknowledge that booming U.S. oil production is underwriting those sanctions. “U.S. production growth, the main factor counterbalancing the supply disruptions on the global oil market, has contributed to a decrease in crude oil price volatility since 2011,” the Energy Information Administration reported on August 27. “Over the past 13 months, the monthly Brent price has moved within a narrow $5 per barrel range.” In May, Bloomberg Businessweek quoted one analyst saying, “North America’s shale boom has been a huge calming factor. Without it, we might be seeing $150 oil right now.”

EIA called this price stability “remarkable,” especially at a time when supply disruptions are at their highest levels since the 1990-91 Iraq-Kuwait war. This price stability strengthens the capacity of nations to pursue vigorous economic, diplomatic, and military measures because it mitigates their concerns about upsetting global oil markets and harming their own economies.

In 2013, energy policymakers and analysts noted that increasing U.S. oil production was playing a vital role in supporting the Iranian sanctions regime. According to an April 1, 2013, report by NBC News, increased U.S. oil production helped keep oil prices stable despite the loss of 1.5 million barrels a day of oil exports from Iran. Daniel Yergin, a prominent energy analyst was quoted saying: “People talk of the future impact. The increase in U.S. oil production has already had an impact. Sanctions wouldn’t have been effective without U.S. oil production.”
https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-pa...foreign-policy
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 09:34 AM   #434
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

If you think this downturn is like any of the other ones your head is firmly stuck in the sand.

Like mentioned above and by many others including a lot of smart people in the energy industry, we are literally one big innovation in the field of battery technology away from the internal combustion engine being a thing of the past. And considering how much money is being put into research by billion dollar companies to come up with that exact solution, how long do you think it will take? 5 years?
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Old 07-07-2017, 10:57 AM   #435
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
If you think this downturn is like any of the other ones your head is firmly stuck in the sand.

Like mentioned above and by many others including a lot of smart people in the energy industry, we are literally one big innovation in the field of battery technology away from the internal combustion engine being a thing of the past. And considering how much money is being put into research by billion dollar companies to come up with that exact solution, how long do you think it will take? 5 years?
Maybe, but we are only talking about newly produced cars. How long will it take to really phase out existing gasoline fueled vehicles from the world? Maybe another 10-20 years once vehicles with gas engines stop being produced? The impact of transport trucks, aircraft, boats I am not sure about in the future.

I am pretty keen on seeing what Volvo comes up with with their cars, and if they're transitioning their transport truck business to electric or stop producing them altogether.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 11:52 AM   #436
AFireInside
First Line Centre
 
AFireInside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The ridesharing/fleet membership instead of owning a car is insane. If a disaster occurs and you need to get out now are you going to call up an uber? What about when the roads are blocked? An autonomous car isn't going to go off road and through ditches to escape. How many people wouldn't have escaped the Fort McMurray fires last year? I can tell you that I'd probably be mourning the death of several family members. Before anyone says there will be manual controls, if people only drive in emergency scenarios I'm not sure that's a good thing. People's driving skills would be pretty bad at that point.

I can't see how traffic wouldn't be way worse. If everyone is taking their own car or even sharing that would be be way more cars on the road wouldn't it? Why would anyone take a bus? There's obvious pros like safety but why can't we just make cars that make us safer drivers instead of ultimately trying to make them 100% autonomous?

I'm probably overly pessimistic but all I ever read about are these amazing pros and visions of utopia with autonomous tech, but I see it causing massive problems as well.. People seem very distracted by trivial conveniences..

Just because we can do things doesn't mean we always should.
AFireInside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 12:02 PM   #437
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

When have you ever fled town at 100 kph for anything. For Christ sake we live in Calgary.
Ozy_Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 12:16 PM   #438
AFireInside
First Line Centre
 
AFireInside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame View Post
When have you ever fled town at 100 kph for anything. For Christ sake we live in Calgary.
My brother, sister in law, nephew, her parents and dozens of friends had to drive 1 year ago in Fort McMurray. My Brother had to take his vehicle off road to get out. Not at 100 kph obviously.

Sorry I didn't realize this technology only applied to Calgary.. I can acknowledge the pros of the concept but it seems you can't acknowledge potential cons. You're right though we should all share cars controlled by big corporations and governments because nothing can ever go wrong. As long as I can check out Facebook on my way to work.
AFireInside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 12:21 PM   #439
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The shale ponzi scheme won't last forever, it's pretty clear they aren't generating free cashflow at these prices and eventually bond investors will move on. If interest rates climb they won't chase yields in the junk bond market, which should starve all but the best plays.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Old 07-07-2017, 12:56 PM   #440
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside View Post
My brother, sister in law, nephew, her parents and dozens of friends had to drive 1 year ago in Fort McMurray. My Brother had to take his vehicle off road to get out. Not at 100 kph obviously.

Sorry I didn't realize this technology only applied to Calgary.. I can acknowledge the pros of the concept but it seems you can't acknowledge potential cons. You're right though we should all share cars controlled by big corporations and governments because nothing can ever go wrong. As long as I can check out Facebook on my way to work.
No, I can't.

Know why?

Because disruption is going to happen whether you like it or not.

And your catastrophizing around the whole things sounds like my grandparents back in the mid nineties going off on how the Internet and Nintendo will turn us all into Jello.

If you're going to come up with disaster scenarios where Big Brother and private corporations are running your life, you may as well wave the white flag on everything in life today. It's already here.
Ozy_Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021