Canada................post fossil fuels.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by le calmar

I am ok with places like Badger to shut down, but we cannot let that happen to the picturesque coastal fishermen settlements. Somewhat their economy will have to be 100% tourism-based.

There's an oversupply of those places and they don't offer a lifestyle that's appealing to that many people. I think some picturesque ones will survive near cities or regional service centres and some will survive partly on tourism or might be used seasonally.

I was curious so I had a look and Iceland has an urbanization rate of 94%.

Atlantic Canada has a bad history of urban vs. rural politics and the federal government in the past has often focused on rural parts of the region.

If Quebec politics were like Atlantic 90's politics (I am not sure to what degree they are), most of your premiers would be from places like Matane or Shawinigan and the provincial government would be focused on bringing rural service levels up to urban standards. Most of the talk would be about industrial subsidies for pulp mills, rural highway interchanges, and small town hospitals or clinics. Any infrastructure project for Montreal like a new subway line or bridge would be called gold-plated and unfair because small town Quebec does not have similar infrastructure.

Nova Scotia has a municipal equalization program that pays out to every municipality except Halifax. One political debate in Cape Breton is that people there believe that NS equalization should be earmarked for that part of the province alone since they enable NS as a whole to qualify.

[ssiguy]

Germany has recently announced a plan to phase out all natural gas in all it's applications by 2050. Germany, like the rest of the planet save BC. It is part of it's plans to DEcarbonize their economy. Of course what Germany does is usually followed by the rest of Europe if only by neccessity. This is a big deal as Germany is a huge exporter of autos of all types and hence forces any country that is inreceipt of those vehicles to do the same. Hyundai and Toyota are focusing all their research on hydrogen. These things do not bode well for natural gas's long-term viability as a power/energy source.

Natural gas does however have a longer staying power than coal or oil. It is the least polluting of the three and hence countries will first phase out the 2 most most damging sources amd then move to getting rid of natural gas.

The news of AC & WJ using planes with lower emissions is good but eventually irrelevant. Air travel is growing at a dizzying rate mostly due to China and India and that trend will continue. Hydrogen is the only option for zero emissions air travel.

[WarrenC12]

I agree that Germany leads the way in Europe, but they are making some questionable decisions. They are phasing out Nuclear quickly, and now this announcement on natural gas.

But... they are still using a ton of coal. Coal should have be phased out ASAP. Nuclear should have been kept around as an emissions free bridge while fossil fuels are removed from the system.

[ssiguy]

Obviously a de-carbonized Canada will wreck havoc on government revenues especially in Alberta but also Ottawa. That said the biggest implications for Ottawa and Canada as a whole will be political.

Contrary to what many think, much of the equalization calculations are not based upon current economic realities but this rather nubulous and politically motivated concept of "revenue potential". How will Ottawa still consider oil & natural gas deposits as a revenue potential when they are commodities that the world no longer wants? It's probable that O&G will be treated with the same contempt in 50 years that asbestos is today.

If both are no longer considered revenue potentials then Alberta's contributions to equalization will plunge leaving the 2 giants in the room left to fill in that financial gap.........Ontario and Quebec. That will either mean huge increases from those 2 politically powerful provinces or a plunge in equalization payments to the remaining have-not provinces.

[LakeLocker]

It'll be about 40 years after nuclear fusion becomes a thing. Which will be 40 years after it is developed, which is always been 40 years away. Which means we'll likely see a fusion(post carbon) economy around the year 2180.

Seriously you know the whole conversation is a waste of time when:

A) People see new electric cars as a sign of progress. The reality is people choosing not to drive is far better, and eletric cars are increasing our environmental footprint not decreasing it.

B) Not enough focus on Coal get rid of it globally. It causes too many problems and isn't all that useful.

C) Controlling the supply of oil. Both oil suppliers and oil users want the same thing. Less oil flowing around instead of attacking existing oil projects how about preventing new oil supplies from coming on line. Banning exploration of oil in non traditional markets would please everyone. Oil producers would make more profit and overall oil consumption would decline as producers run into production bottlenecks. Until this happens you know everyone is completely full of shit.

D) More attention being focused on restricting land usage. Again much like the oil situation you can't restrict land usage that people already want you need to do so in areas that will minimize the effects on current day people.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

It'll be about 40 years after nuclear fusion becomes a thing. Which will be 40 years after it is developed, which is always been 40 years away. Which means we'll likely see a fusion(post carbon) economy around the year 2180.

Cheap fusion power would be great but it's not a precondition for moving beyond fossil fuels.

The limiting factor is really the energy storage, not the power source. We can already get lots of nuclear or solar power, but we can't use it easily in vehicles and can't easily do load balancing.

But even just convention batteries keep getting better year over year and energy density has been roughly doubling every decade. Charging speeds keep going up too. This is why uses like electric scooters are becoming ubiquitous today but never quite caught on in 2004.

If nothing dramatic happens with batteries over the next 20 years except for status quo incremental improvement, electric cars will still become better than gasoline cars. If a dramatic battery breakthrough happens (all the way out to manufacturing at scale), the world will change very quickly.

[ssiguy]

Interesting points about nuclear guys but how will that effect Canada's future?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Interesting points about nuclear guys but how will that effect Canada's future?

Canada actually has a good legacy of nuclear Science and nuclear power development. CANDU reactors have been built around the world. Canada also has a lot of potential fuel.

But all of that aside my big point is that a post-oil future isn't only dependent on the development of a new power source that sounds like it's from science fiction. We don't need mini fusion generators in cars or something like that. We are bound by energy storage and transportation constraints, not generation. Our current energy storage technology is incrementally getting better every year, so even without some unpredictable breakthrough this constraint is easing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Interesting points about nuclear guys but how will that effect Canada's future?

If the US decides to go back into Nuclear in a big way (they are unpredictable these days), it will impact Canada because our grids are interconnected.

We also have Uranium and some Nuclear know-how.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the US decides to go back into Nuclear in a big way (they are unpredictable these days), it will impact Canada because our grids are interconnected.

We also have Uranium and some Nuclear know-how.

It would make Elliot Lake great again!

[casper]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the US decides to go back into Nuclear in a big way (they are unpredictable these days), it will impact Canada because our grids are interconnected.

We also have Uranium and some Nuclear know-how.

US reactors are designed to burn enriched uranium. CANDU reactors are far more flexible. Optimal configuration would be burn fuel in a convential reactor, then reprocess and use the resulting fuel to power a CANDU.

[ssiguy]

For Canada, hydro isn't a problem because we have more potential for it than probably any other country on the planet. In Canada, I don't see much of an expansion of nuclear power outside of Ontario. We have many electrical generational options that are far easier and cheaper to employ. That said, a resurgence in nuclear power worldwide could greatly help our uranium exports as we have huge deposits.

[WarrenC12]

Meanwhile, we continue to give handouts to O&G:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6187523/t...sidies-report/

[TorontoDrew]

Source: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11...ewable-energy/

11 COUNTRIES LEADING THE CHARGE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY

1. SWEDEN
In 2015, Sweden threw down the gauntlet with an ambitious goal: to eliminate fossil fuels from electricity generation by 2040 within its borders, and has ramped up investment in solar, wind, energy storage, smart grids, and clean transport. And the best part? The Swedes are challenging everyone else to join them in a race to become the first 100% renewable country. Now that’s a competition where everyone wins!

2. COSTA RICA
Thanks to its unique geography and commitment to to the environment, small but mighty Costa Rica has produced 95% of its electricity from hydro, geothermal, solar and wind over the past four years. Next on the horizon: Costa Rica aims to be entirely carbon-neutral by 2021.

3. NICARAGUA
Nicaragua generated of its electricity from renewables in 2017. In 2012, Nicaragua invested the fifth-highest percentage worldwide of its GDP in developing renewable energy. Next on the to-do list: The country is aiming for 90% renewables by 2020, with the majority of electricity coming from wind, solar, and geothermal sources.

4. SCOTLAND
Great Scot! The answer to Scotland’s energy needs is blowing in the wind. In October, wind power generated 98% of Scotland’s electricity needs.

5. GERMANY
Germany is a world leader in renewable energy and in the first half of 2018 it produced enough electricity to power every household in the country for a year. The country has also set an ambitious target to get 65% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. For a relatively cloudy country of over 80 million people, Germany is looking forward to a seriously bright future with solar energy!

6. URUGUAY
Uruguay is now almost 100% powered by renewables almost after less than 10 years of concerted effort. The country invested heavily in wind and solar, rising from just 40% renewables as recently as 2012. The secret? “Clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment, and a strong partnership between the public and private sector.”

7. DENMARK
Denmark gets over half of its electricity from wind and solar power and in 2017, 43% of its electricity consumption was from wind – a new world record! That’s the highest percentage of wind power ever achieved worldwide. The country aims to be 100% fossil-fuel-free by 2050.

8. CHINA
Wondering how the world’s largest carbon emitter can also be a leader in renewable energy? It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 2017 China had by far the largest amount of solar PV and wind capacity installed of any country – by a long shot. China has also committed to generating 35% of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and cleaning up its polluted air.

9. MOROCCO
With ample sun, Morocco decided to go big. Bigger than anyone else in the world, in fact. The largest concentrated solar plant earth is nearing completion in Morocco. With its accompanying wind and hydro plants, the mega-project is expected to provide half of Morocco’s electricity by 2020.

10. THE USA
In the US, a new solar energy system was installed every two minutes and 30 seconds in 2014, earning the US fifth place on the installed solar PV capacity global rankings. America also has the second-highest installed wind energy capacity in the world after China.

11. KENYA
Kenya believe it? This country is looking to geothermal energy to power its future and reduce reliance on costly electricity imports. Kenya gets around half its electricity from geothermal– up from only 13% in 2010. Kenya’s also betting big on wind, with Africa’s largest wind farm (310 MW) connected to the grid in October and set to provide another 20% of the country’s installed electricity capacity.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

For Canada, hydro isn't a problem because we have more potential for it than probably any other country on the planet.

I think Canada could solely rely on Solar and Wind. There are a lot of debates over the ecological damage Hydro Electric Damns cause. Especially on the West coast, but also elsewhere like in Manitoba where their damns have poisoned lakes and rivers.

• Video Link

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

For Canada, hydro isn't a problem because we have more potential for it than probably any other country on the planet. In Canada, I don't see much of an expansion of nuclear power outside of Ontario. We have many electrical generational options that are far easier and cheaper to employ. That said, a resurgence in nuclear power worldwide could greatly help our uranium exports as we have huge deposits.

Alberta was supposed to build a two-reactor CANDU station back in the early 2000s. The only provinces without significant hydroelectric potential are Alberta and Saskatchewan, hence our reliance on what we've got (the dirty shit). It would have been great if the nuclear project hadn't been shot down.

[s13]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Alberta was supposed to build a two-reactor CANDU station back in the early 2000s. The only provinces without significant hydroelectric potential are Alberta and Saskatchewan, hence our reliance on what we've got (the dirty shit). It would have been great if the nuclear project hadn't been shot down.

I'm not so sure about Saskatchewan, but Alberta's energy mix has been dominated by economics, not the potential for Hydro. There are a lot of sites completely untapped in Alberta for Hydro, but the government here doesn't have the will to see through a $10B+ dam like BC does, just for a 1GW of capacity.

Alberta on the other hand has a few GWs worth of private and government backed renewables coming online right now (wind + solar) for way less than the cost of a new dam. Current economics limits how much Hydro get's built, not potential of it.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Meanwhile, we continue to give handouts to O&G:

Finally, the Alberta government reduced corporate taxes through a tax credit starting in January 2019.

This policy action allowed Trans Mountain to save $54.1 million in taxes,

A general cut to corporate taxes applicable to all large corporations is not a subsidy.

Canada’s 4.7 per cent interest rate stands in contrast with the 12 to 15 per cent rate of return used by its former owner, Kinder Morgan, the report says.

Sanzillo used the lower figure, 12 per cent, to calculate that a private company would have charged Trans Mountain $302.1 million in interest in the first half of 2019. The Canadian government, meanwhile, charged it $118.3 million.

This makes no sense, the internal rate of return of a project is not the same rate that you would borrow money at to build that project. It should be compared with the rate that Kinder Morgan could borrow at, which looking at at some of it bonds is often less than 4.7%.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...8-us49456bap67

KM could sell a 30-year bond for half of that 12 percent interest:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...5-us49456bah42

[WarrenC12]

Selective quoting there. I see you left this part out:

The Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. covered the interest on the equity investment for the first half of 2019, representing a direct subsidy of $46.3 million, the report says.

A crown corp.

Trans Mountain posted a $10.9 million loss in this reporting period prior to taxes, the report says.

However, the loss is subsidized in the consolidated financial report by the Hibernia corporation’s earnings, amounting to another $10.9-million direct subsidy, the report says.

Sanzillo also says the development corporation uses an “accounting gimmick” to obscure Trans Mountain’s pension liability of $24.4 million. This is one more direct subsidy, he says.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Selective quoting there. I see you left this part out:

I was mainly interested in the two largest items.

A crown corp.

So is Trans Mountain:



CDEV also owns Canada Hibernia Holding Corp, so it's really a more of a matter of moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket.

The Canadian treasury lends $5B to CDEV, who pay part of the 4.7% interest from pipeline earnings but can pay another part of it from its other holdings. No different than a large organization that uses the earnings of existing, mature projects to pay for the cost of new ones.

Or for that matter, CDEV going into the markets and raising $5B from bonds and/or new shares to build TMX and paying off early year interest with existing operation while TMX is built.

Sanzillo also says the development corporation uses an “accounting gimmick” to obscure Trans Mountain’s pension liability of $24.4 million.

Not enough details to say if it is or not.