Ahhh yes. There are definitely two sides to each coin. This goes down a completely different rabbit hole. Definitely a good 2-beer discussion. When politics and money become involved in pure engineering, science, and technology, then it becomes really messy.
Yep, and from the opposite perspective people are trying to normalize the opposite of fossil fuels and maximize climate alarmism. I guess it depends on who can afford the largest loud-speaker?
Good Iâll ask my contacts there about this 
Do fossil fuels, when consumed, release carbon dioxide ?
And has that carbon been stored in some form in the ground for many many many (usually millions) of years ? (Iâm thinking coal, oil sands, conventional crude, heavy crude and even bitumen like we frequently find in Alberta ?)
Is CO2 a âgreenhouse gasâ (ie its very effective at trapping infrared - or heat) ?
Like the O & G industry in Alberta ? (hence why the govt has stopped approving solar projects above a certain limit ?)
Iâll be very frank
My contact at the AER has flat out said they think in terms of oil & gas and everything else is secondary. And unimportant.
And thats basically government policy in action
Agreed⌠but where somebody winds up is often different from were they wanted to go.
-Karen
Even better is a direct quote from Smith
âSo Iâve told them, how can I bring on additional wind and solar if Iâm not able to secure the reliability of my power grid by being able to bring on natural gas peaker plants? Thatâs the heart of the problem,â Smith said.
Great so DONT approve them until/unless THEY can provide that peaking load from their project. Iâd be all for that.
Give those projects a reason to become more like the power gen plants based on gas
But no
The govt doesnt think like that
So they just quit approvals because âBad Trudeauâ 
Yes, please do.
Sure, fossil fuels, humans, trees (during darkness) all release CO2 - it is an essential chemical of life to exist.
Yes, some is released - such as on the surface land of the Fort McMurray area. Some storage is deep in the earth. There is a large amount of Crude Oil in Quebec and Ontario (some say more than Alberta?).
Yes, this is one of many factors - definitely not the only one.
I donât think so, although I could be wrong. There were too many greedy people trying to push the environmental-flag to 1) get money from the government, and 2) have free reign to destroy the environment. The government regulatory branches really do not care how much something costs, and are just trying to do the right thing. If someone in the Oil and Gas industry does something wrong, they get punished. If someone in the Uranium industry does something wrong, they are also punished. Same for solar, etc.
I can see why your contact would say that. And it makes sense. Human demand for energy consists of food, construction, heat, manufacturing, etc. Most of this energy comes from Oil and Gas because of the energy density and reliability. Maybe one day, solar, fission, fusion, wind and other energy forms will be able to provide reliable and sufficient energy in the future. For now, the Oil And Gas industry is attempting to help these other energy initiatives (solar etc) by providing electricity during a storm, or when the wind is not blowing.
Agreed, this is one of many factors. Some of the other factors are from ROI (return on investment). If I go to the bank and get a 5-year loan for $50 million dollars to make the next greatest solar panel. If it takes 30 years to make enough electricity from solar panels, then I will go bankrupt.
If I take the same 5-year loan for $50 million dollars in Oil and Gas, and I pay the loan back in 2-years, then I am financially stable.
Donât get me wrong, I am all for saving the environment - I wish it to be performed in a sustainable way. Stopping all forms of Oil and Gas energy overnight is just purely irresponsible. This brings us back to the death-of-humans debate.
Lets use the broad example of building electric cars. When the technology is new, humans canât build an electric car without using Oil and Gas Energy. Energy is needed to mine iron, create rubber tires, make electric motors. Supplementing Oil and Gas energy with solar or wind power is a great idea. When its -40 outside, I donât want to have to think about âenough sunshineâ or âenough windâ to keep me from freezing in my house. Its going to take time - correction - ALOT of time - maybe a couple of generations - to make this happen.
Solar is, now, the CHEAPEST form of electricity generation there is
Even cheaper than coal
Your ROI will be much quicker than 30 years
Personally I have NEVER said any such thing
Anyone serious about such a move to renewables also knows that its a transition
Its the speed of the transition to them thats debatable
It needs to be fairly rapid according to the IPCC and many other national an international research groups
Generations is far too slow to avoid many of the worst outcomes
It doesnt have to BE fossil fuels that do this though
Bagger 288 - Wikipedia (FWIW its ELECTRIC)
Underground mining is also doing this
ENERGY doesnt automatically mean fossil fuels
Me either
Which is why we NEED storage - so on super windy and sunny days we can generate way more electricity than is demanded. And can put that back onto the grid when generation is lower.
IF we continue to think in the same terms we do now where we need more so fire up the plant and make more then we will NEVER move. Renewables like solar & wind require a different mindset. You HAVE to think about it from the point of view of making TONS when you can and consuming it later. Just like we do with nearly EVERY other product on the planet. We dont harvest grain and consume it all immediately. Even O & G we dont do that. We have some storage & reserves.
So WHY do we do that with electricity ???
And continue to only think about it like its the ONLY possible way to deal with electricity ?
oh, except for the batteries we stuff in cars, or portable devices, or ⌠?
And if it takes generations then, while Iâll be long dead, humanity is likely screwed
O&G can afford by far and away the largest loud-speaker, plus it is an entrenched player, which is why itâs such an uphill battle to move people from a place of complacence (and therefore complicity) and one of meaningful action.
If anything, we as a species have been way more guilty of climate unawareness and minimizing, than the inverse.
Facts are not optimistic or pessimistic, positive or negative, they just are.
You need to rationalize your role in all of this. I get that. But just as with a lot of things in life, it doesnât really matter how you feel about it. You might, say, enjoy a fatty diet, but your cardiovascular system doesnât give a fig about your feels; it is just that much more likely to throw a rod whether you want it to or not. You might, say, be tired of Covid but the virus doesnât give a fig about your feels; if you catch it enough times, eventually youâll be disabled whether or not you âbelieveâ in Covid or masking or vaccinations or long covid or are convinced that people who warn you of these things are âalarmistsâ. You might want to think the fossil fuel industry has no appreciable role in what you want to think is not a very alarming climate situation, but the climate doesnât give a fig.
Unsubsidised solar is now the cheapest form of electricity generation there has ever been, a point made by Tony Seba in the video I linked to above. Also the production cost of solar panels has reduced so much that a construction company in Australia is using them as cladding as theyâre cheaper than plywood.
He predicts rooftop solar will soon be cheaper than the cost of transmission across the grid so even if other methods of generation had a cost of zero theyâd still be more expensive.
Perhaps we have to put you in a press to extract the oil, just like with the olives and the algae 
This is a not being deceptive.
Lets do some really simple economics and take the price of a new cheap Tesla and a new cheap Toyota Camry. We expect the car will last at least 200,000 km.
The cost of a Tesla in Calgary today (16 Sept 2023) is $59,900.
Lets pretend the cost of electricity is completely free
Lets pretend there are no maintenance costs
The cost of a Camry in Calgary today (16 Sept 2023) is $34,151
We will need fuel to drive 200,000 km. Driving in the City (horrible efficiency) the gasoline-only car gets 8.5L/100 km. This means it will need 17,000 litres of fuel to travel 200,000 km (200,000/100*8.5). Today, a litre of fuel is $1.40/L. Fuel will cost $23,800 (17,000 L x $1.40).
The total cost for a gasoline car to travel 200,000 km is $57,951. Yes, oil changes will need to be factored in.
I am presuming all vehicles will have the same costs for tires that exists on both cars.
From a purely economic point of view - its less expensive to drive a brand new gasoline car 200,000 km than it is to purchase a Telsa if the electricity is completely free.
Oh, I forgot to mention during our many informational exchanges - most crude oil does not go through a filter. It usually requires going through a refinery to get the stuff that flows through a filter. Usually larger mesh screens are use to catch the âbigâ stuff.
I am pretty sure this will not flow through a filter - or mesh.
Edit: This is a picture of a line that is to be cleaned - the process is called Pigging (yes, oink, oink)
Youâd be digging out pits just like the olives
HOW exactly does the cost of owning & operating a tesla relate to the cost of generating electricity ?
Completely 100% OFF topic and not relevant to my post - at all
It currently costs more to generate electricity using COAL OIL or GAS than it does to generate from solar (and wind)
Renewables are THE cheapest form of generation we have
and fwiw most car sites I checked, like this one, peg total annual maintenance costs of a Tesla lower than owning that Camry
No transmission
No coolant
No air filters for the engine
No fuel filters
and so on
Thereâs just more to go wrong on an internal combustion engine
but, that still wasnt my point about it being CHEAPER to GENERATE electricity using renewables than it is to use OIL COAL or GAS
AFAIK They are not the first state to sue
Its many of the same tactics that large tobacco companies used to fight against being regulated and health warnings about smoking causing cancer despite them knowing it did from their own research
Iâd say âexactlyâ rather than âmuchâ the same tactical approach, but yeah at this point anyone shilling for fossil fuel interests has no credibility. The public is more widely addicted to the lifestyle enabled by fossil fuels than it was to tobacco and it is harder to see the negative consequences so itâs taking them longer to catch on, unfortunately.
donât use big word you donât understand, coincidence today:
is there an intellectual trend in amerca about it ? maybe
the header is right, you use the word in an inapropriate way, itâs misleading
not a first time in the pageâŚ
Well said . Perfect
