Canada leaves Kyoto

[Coop D'etat]

Nukes aren't the easiest to build, though. I mean even Germany is shutting all their plants down, why is it expected tht Alberta and Saskatchewan will build nuclear plants?

I really wish it wasn't so, but believe me, it's nearly impossible to convince people here nuclear plants are safe.

That may be true but it doesn't excuse the governments of those provinces and by extension their citizens from the heavy carbon emissions they release and have done very little to curb.

[Enigma]

I never expected the federal government under any party (except maybe the NDP or the Green Party should they ever form a government) to follow the Kyoto Accord. It was a national and international PR stunt for the Libs and AFAIK the Tories were against it from the get go. Now they are simply following through with their opposition.

The Liberals were too full of themselves with making promises that everyone knew were not going to happen (remember the national daycare the Libs constantly promised in every election and then created excuses not to follow through afterwards?).

Can't complain that the Harper Tories were conniving and scheming if everyone knew they didn't want to be a part of Kyoto.

Meh, politics.

[Artemas]

yeah, kyoto had a lifetime of 15 years, and only by 2003-4 was the liberal government making any moves towards it, nearly half way through it. the conservatives ended up in the interesting position of having to back out of a deal that they A) didnt like and didnt want to follow, and B) their position to enforce kyoto was already crippled anyway by the time they entered power.

anyway, canada should never have signed if the US also didnt sign, and its this fundamental issue that has directly resulted in canada having to leave the treaty.

[D.Turtle]

Why should Canada's position be dependent on the US position?

[Artemas]

why would the worlds largest economy and the single largest market for canadian goods impact canadian economic decisions?

[Thanas]

The same could be said by the EU. Yet they went along.

This excuse does not hold water.

[Artemas]

a better analogy would be if denmark was the only country in europe to impose cfc regs

the eu countries went along with it because all of the eu countries did, collectively

and but this was not mirrored in north america

[Thanas]

Canada is way more important than Denmark.

[Coop D'etat]

The same could be said by the EU. Yet they went along.

This excuse does not hold water.

The EU has a vast domestic market that the component nations trade within. Canada is an adjutant to the US in a similarly sized North American market which is about nine tenths USA and one tenth Canada. Which is a strange and somewhat unfortunate position for such a large and advanced economy like Canada's to be in but thems the breaks.

Denmark is a bad example its more like if Spain or Italy went along with Kyoto while the rest of the EU didn't. You'd be putting yourself in a disadvantage not just in foreign trade but your own home market by doing so. And the benefit to the world is pretty marginal if the big boys don't sign up.

[D.Turtle]

why would the worlds largest economy and the single largest market for canadian goods impact canadian economic decisions?

Because the only way to meet Kyoto goals is through killing your economy and competitiveness - just look how Germany absolutely killed its economy to meet Kyoto goals.

Oh right, that didn't happen. Germany is doing fine and is actually positioned exceptionally well to profit from the renewable energy boom. Oh well, stay in the last century. When solar, wind, etc becomes cheaper than your oil sands, you can come crying to us because ruining your environment didn't pay off.

[Phantasee]

Hahaha, you think Alberta is expecting the oilsands to become worth less? That's now how it works.

[Thanas]

Let me phrase it another way. In what industries is the US in direct competition with Canada, how important are these to the economy and how would Kyoto negatively affect them?

[D.Turtle]

Hahaha, you think Alberta is expecting the oilsands to become worth less? That's now how it works.

I don't know what Alberta is expecting.

I know what I'm expecting: Oil sands are a very expensive, dirty, and inefficient way of getting energy. As the price of solar and wind energy continues dropping, it will quite quickly be cheaper than getting oil from oil sands. At which point it would have been a better bet to develop renewable energy, which would have enabled Canada to utilize its advantage in that area over American companies to profit immensely when the US belatedly jumps on the renewables bandwagon.

Instead, they'll have to catch up with the rest of the world - like the US.

[aerius]

Let me phrase it another way. In what industries is the US in direct competition with Canada, how important are these to the economy and how would Kyoto negatively affect them?

Automaking, airplanes, agriculture, mining, aluminum & nickel smelting, steelmaking, light manufacturing, and a whole bunch more that I don't even know about. All but the last use a crapload of energy in various forms, some of it is electricity, some of it is oil, coal, natural gas, and some of them pollute like hell. How important they are I'm not qualified to say, but if Bombardier went under or our auto plants shut down we'd be in deep shit.

I know what I'm expecting: Oil sands are a very expensive, dirty, and inefficient way of getting energy. As the price of solar and wind energy continues dropping, it will quite quickly be cheaper than getting oil from oil sands. At which point it would have been a better bet to develop renewable energy, which would have enabled Canada to utilize its advantage in that area over American companies to profit immensely when the US belatedly jumps on the renewables bandwagon.

Talk to me when you can get sunshine & wind to move cars & airplanes across the 2nd largest country in the world at a price and convenience that's competitive with oil. It ain't happening unless we have large breakthroughs in battery technology, power grid distribution, and cost reductions in renewable power.

[Thanas]

That is not really an answer to my question, Aerius, especially considering that except for mining Germany does about the same.

[Sky Captain]

Wouldn't solar energy be kinda worthless in Canada? You have long winters with little sunshine when there would be next to no power generated. In Europe solar energy only works because of large subsidies. Take those away and it is much cheaper to burn dirty coal.

How well solar energy works during winter in Germany/Europe?
You can find it here.
http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/p ... rmany.html

[Phantasee]

Hahaha, you think Alberta is expecting the oilsands to become worth less? That's now how it works.

I don't know what Alberta is expecting.

I know what I'm expecting: Oil sands are a very expensive, dirty, and inefficient way of getting energy. As the price of solar and wind energy continues dropping, it will quite quickly be cheaper than getting oil from oil sands. At which point it would have been a better bet to develop renewable energy, which would have enabled Canada to utilize its advantage in that area over American companies to profit immensely when the US belatedly jumps on the renewables bandwagon.

Instead, they'll have to catch up with the rest of the world - like the US.

I wonder how much your expectations are coloured by the perceptions of oilsands in Europe? Yes, they are more expensive than conventional crude, yes it's not the cleanest process, but inefficient? It's more efficient than solar and wind; this is evidenced by all the private investment coming in to the oilsands versus the heavily subsidized development of renewables.

The price of energy from renewables might go down, but the need for oil won't, not any time soon. It's used in far too many industrial processes to go away. And that's assuming we decide to stop burning it for energy.

[D.Turtle]

Wouldn't solar energy be kinda worthless in Canada? You have long winters with little sunshine when there would be next to no power generated. In Europe solar energy only works because of large subsidies. Take those away and it is much cheaper to burn dirty coal.

How well solar energy works during winter in Germany/Europe?
You can find it here.
http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/p ... rmany.html

Southern Canada is at the same latitude as Germany. So they get pretty much the same amount of solar output.

While solar power might get large subsidies, fossil fuels get even larger ones:

Fossil-fuel consumers worldwide received about six times more government subsidies than were given to the renewable-energy industry, according to the chief adviser to oil-importing nations.

State spending to cut retail prices of gasoline, coal and natural gas rose 36 percent to $409 billion as global energy costs increased, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said today in its World Energy Outlook. Aid for biofuels, wind power and solar energy, rose 10 percent to $66 billion.

[...]

In addition, while oil prices have been rising for quite some time, solar prices have fallen steadily and strongly the last few decades, and are now already close to or at grid parity in many places (with and without subsidies):

I wonder how much your expectations are coloured by the perceptions of oilsands in Europe? Yes, they are more expensive than conventional crude, yes it's not the cleanest process, but inefficient? It's more efficient than solar and wind; this is evidenced by all the private investment coming in to the oilsands versus the heavily subsidized development of renewables.

The price of energy from renewables might go down, but the need for oil won't, not any time soon. It's used in far too many industrial processes to go away. And that's assuming we decide to stop burning it for energy.

Yes, oil/petroleum has other uses besides burning for energy. Those are however small in comparison to just burning it up for energy:


As noted above, subsidies for fossil fuels are a lot larger than subsidies for renewables - they are just hidden better. In addition, renewables are close to, or at the point where they are competitive even without subsidies. Lastly, a huge amount of the costs of fossil fuels are hidden. If you add the hidden costs, the situation looks very different:

[...]

Even the study’s most conservative estimate of the uncounted cost of coal — $175 billion a year — would more than double the average cost of coal-fired electricity, the authors found. At this lower range, roughly 80 percent of the costs were from well-documented public health impacts like lung and heart disease, with the rest of the costs attributed to climate change and other environmental impacts as well as local economic effects like lost tourism in coal-mining areas.

[...]

[aerius]

That is not really an answer to my question, Aerius, especially considering that except for mining Germany does about the same.

Yes, but what is your market? The US is a large market for your goods, but most of your stuff goes to other EU countries which have similar evironmental standards compared to your own. For Canada, nearly 80% of our trade is with the US, it would be very difficult if not impossible for us to compete with the US if we had EU environmental standards. We're not Japan, we don't have the advanced technology base to stay competitive if we adopted higher standards. And as much as I wish we did it's not happening thanks to government policies and cultural values.

If I had my way I'd build a dozen or two CANDU plants and end all use of coal for electrical generation. Then I'd convert the oil sands extraction process from using natural gas to produce the steam that's used for extracting & refining the oil to nuke power as well. Then complete all phases of the James Bay hydro-electric project. If I did that we could meet Kyoto, but it would cost $200-300 billion and the greenies would shit a brick.

[Phantasee]

I would have been very happy if we could have built a CANDU plant for the oilsands up here, but it's hard to convince people it's safe, and it's even harder when there's all this fucking coal everywhere for them to burn. I've seen Genesee and the plants around Wabamun lake here in central Alberta; at Genesee the open pit coal mine is next to the plant.

Nuclear-powered steam production for the oilsands would be a great thing, but even just powering all the projects would be a big step. As it is it's all coal and natural gas plants.

[Sky Captain]

Southern Canada is at the same latitude as Germany. So they get pretty much the same amount of solar output.

That means pretty much no electricity for 4 - 5 months.

While solar power might get large subsidies, fossil fuels get even larger ones

Is there any info how much subsidies per MWh produced solar and wind get vs MWh produced from fossil sources? You can't compare directly because while fossil energy get more subsidies it also produce a lot more energy and do it reliably 24/7. If i were owning an utility company I would value reliable energy supply much more than unreliable supply even if price per MW/h is similar.

[D.Turtle]

That means pretty much no electricity for 4 - 5 months.

Obviously, the winter is a problem. However, it is a problem that countries in (central and northern) Europe have just as much as Canada. If it can work in Europe - and it does - then it can work in Canada.

Is there any info how much subsidies per MWh produced solar and wind get vs MWh produced from fossil sources? You can't compare directly because while fossil energy get more subsidies it also produce a lot more energy and do it reliably 24/7. If i were owning an utility company I would value reliable energy supply much more than unreliable supply even if price per MW/h is similar.

The numbers are obviously quite different when looked at per MWh:

(Refined coal = "clean coal")

Thats why I pointed out that there are tons of hidden costs - especially for coal - that simply aren't priced in. Doubling, tripling, or even more the price of coal (which is the worst offender) would quickly make it non.competitive. But since those costs are socialized, nobody cares.

There are a lot of designs, simulations, and starting implementations of ways to get 100% reliable, 100% renewable energy supply - something which is a long term goal, and does not have to be achieved right away. Canada is actually in a superb position to do so, as they have tons and tons of space for hydro power. They just lack the will to utilize it.

[Phantasee]

You know that hydro power is very geography dependant, and Alberta and Saskatchewan are not in any position to take advantage of it? There's a reason we emit so much carbon; BC, Ontario, and Quebec have a lot more hydro power options available to them. Ontario and Quebec also have a lot of nuclear power available to them. Alberta and Saskatchewan get fucked by geography in terms of hydro, but 'blessed' with tons of coal and natural gas.

It's not a lack of will; it's you not realizing how fucking big the country is.

[Sky Captain]

Obviously, the winter is a problem. However, it is a problem that countries in (central and northern) Europe have just as much as Canada. If it can work in Europe - and it does - then it can work in Canada.

What can be done to solve that problem other than ramping up backup fossil fuel plants to compensate? Storing surplus power from summer obviosly is impractical.
Why not develop geothermal energy? it works 24/7 as good as nuclear or fossil and don't have the negative public perception. Eifel volcanic field is still potentially active, there should be plenty of places where heat coming from those ancient magma chambers could be tapped for steam generation. Also according to table you posted geothermal receives very little subsidy and appearently can be profitable on its own so if there is good site it should provide cheap reliable energy.

[D.Turtle]

You know that hydro power is very geography dependant, and Alberta and Saskatchewan are not in any position to take advantage of it? There's a reason we emit so much carbon; BC, Ontario, and Quebec have a lot more hydro power options available to them. Ontario and Quebec also have a lot of nuclear power available to them. Alberta and Saskatchewan get fucked by geography in terms of hydro, but 'blessed' with tons of coal and natural gas.

It's not a lack of will; it's you not realizing how fucking big the country is.

Electricity can be transmitted relatively easily over very large distances. In addition you have other renewables like wind power that are available pretty much everywhere.

What can be done to solve that problem other than ramping up backup fossil fuel plants to compensate? Storing surplus power from summer obviously is impractical.

Thats where things like wind power, biofuel, etc. come in. Canada already has a huge base of hydro power - that could easily be expanded. If there is support for it, nuclear energy could also be used.

Why not develop geothermal energy? it works 24/7 as good as nuclear or fossil and don't have the negative public perception. Eifel volcanic field is still potentially active, there should be plenty of places where heat coming from those ancient magma chambers could be tapped for steam generation. Also according to table you posted geothermal receives very little subsidy and appearently can be profitable on its own so if there is good site it should provide cheap reliable energy.

I have no idea about the geothermal potential of Canada - but sure, if its possible, go right ahead. Anything is better than coal & oil.