4 ms·

What if Canada had spent $200bn on wind energy instead of oil?

30 points by a_w 8y ago

rohitb91 8y ago
Weren't too many electrical cars back then.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  There was plenty of demand for electricity though, and electric cars are definitely not a new technology(0) 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History
- trumped 8y ago
  electric cars are probably still not the largest electricity consumer...
dade_ 8y ago
Then we could have recovered some of the wind from the mouths of our politicians.
Camillo 8y ago
> since 1999 > at the current cost Wow great research. By the same token, Canada should cancel the next $200bn of expenditures on wind energy and save it. By spending it in bulk in 20 years, surely it will be able to get much more energy at a lower price. Genius.
- Phanyxx 8y ago
  The balance between inflation and dropping turbine prices. I'm sure there are trend lines somewhere...
lupinglade 8y ago
Or how about on Internet infrastructure?
snowwindwaves 8y ago
Article says 912 million barrels produced since 1999 with cost of extraction $40 per barrel for 36 billion spent on equipment, wages, etc. the average cost of oil since 2000 is $65 per barrel so 912 million barrels grossed 58 billion. It isn't clear who invested 200 billion and why they continued to invest since they have a loss of 178 billion having only netted 22 billion.
- mmt 8y ago
  > Article says 912 million barrels produced since 1999 Actually, it says: > In 2017, the Alberta oil sands produced roughly 912m barrels. The article doesn't actually tell us the whole history, it just cherry-picks one year. There's other suspicious playing with numbers going on: > About 60% was turned into gasoline and diesel, enough to fuel 73m vehicles So.. if 100% had been turned into fuel for those vehicles, that would translate to.. 122m vehicles, weirdly identical to their number for electric vehicles. Then they're comparing a 12L/100km (19.6mpg) ICE vehicle against a Chevy Bolt in the pricing section? Not much to see here, sadly.
el_don_almighty 8y ago
* REQUIRES TIME-MACHINE STUPIDLY GOES FORWARD IN TIME FOR 2018 TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF 2025...OR 2050 * CANADIAN ENERGY SEARCH TEAM OF THE FUTURE NEVER COMES BACK BECAUSE FUTURE IS FULL OF SEX ROBOTS
- pdfernhout 8y ago
  Yeah, a time machine -- or reading any of the publications the Rocky Mountain Institute has been putting out since the 1970s (e.g. Brittle Power) that show, when accounting for externalities, renewables and energy efficiency have been cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear since the 1970s. Renewables and energy efficiency should have won in the marketplace for decades. Why didn't they? it is because of an tilted playing field where people don't pay the full cost (including risk) for fossil fuels and nuclear at the gasoline pump or on their electric bill -- but instead they pay it in higher health care costs, taxes for the military, or government-absorbed risk like for nuclear meltdowns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute "The Lovinses described the "hard energy path" as involving inefficient liquid-fuel automotive transport, as well as giant centralized electricity-generating facilities, often burning fossil fuels such as coal or petroleum, or harnessing a fission reaction, greatly complicated by electricity wastage and loss. The "soft energy path" which they wholly preferred involves efficient use of energy, diversity of energy production methods (and matched in scale and quality to end uses), and special reliance on "soft technologies" (alternative technology) such as solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal. According to the Institute, large-scale electricity production facilities had an important place, but it was a place that they were already filling in the middle 1970s; in general, more would not be needed. In a 1989 speech, Amory Lovins introduced the related concept of Negawatt power, in which the creation of a market for trading increased efficiency could supply additional electrical energy to consumers without increasing generation capacity—such as building more power plants."

30 points by a_w 8y ago

rohitb91 8y ago

Weren't too many electrical cars back then.

craftyguy 8y ago
There was plenty of demand for electricity though, and electric cars are definitely not a new technology(0) 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History
trumped 8y ago
electric cars are probably still not the largest electricity consumer...

dade_ 8y ago

Then we could have recovered some of the wind from the mouths of our politicians.

Camillo 8y ago

> since 1999 > at the current cost Wow great research. By the same token, Canada should cancel the next $200bn of expenditures on wind energy and save it. By spending it in bulk in 20 years, surely it will be able to get much more energy at a lower price. Genius.

Phanyxx 8y ago
The balance between inflation and dropping turbine prices. I'm sure there are trend lines somewhere...

lupinglade 8y ago

Or how about on Internet infrastructure?

snowwindwaves 8y ago

Article says 912 million barrels produced since 1999 with cost of extraction $40 per barrel for 36 billion spent on equipment, wages, etc. the average cost of oil since 2000 is $65 per barrel so 912 million barrels grossed 58 billion. It isn't clear who invested 200 billion and why they continued to invest since they have a loss of 178 billion having only netted 22 billion.

mmt 8y ago
> Article says 912 million barrels produced since 1999 Actually, it says: > In 2017, the Alberta oil sands produced roughly 912m barrels. The article doesn't actually tell us the whole history, it just cherry-picks one year. There's other suspicious playing with numbers going on: > About 60% was turned into gasoline and diesel, enough to fuel 73m vehicles So.. if 100% had been turned into fuel for those vehicles, that would translate to.. 122m vehicles, weirdly identical to their number for electric vehicles. Then they're comparing a 12L/100km (19.6mpg) ICE vehicle against a Chevy Bolt in the pricing section? Not much to see here, sadly.

el_don_almighty 8y ago

* REQUIRES TIME-MACHINE STUPIDLY GOES FORWARD IN TIME FOR 2018 TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF 2025...OR 2050 * CANADIAN ENERGY SEARCH TEAM OF THE FUTURE NEVER COMES BACK BECAUSE FUTURE IS FULL OF SEX ROBOTS

pdfernhout 8y ago
Yeah, a time machine -- or reading any of the publications the Rocky Mountain Institute has been putting out since the 1970s (e.g. Brittle Power) that show, when accounting for externalities, renewables and energy efficiency have been cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear since the 1970s. Renewables and energy efficiency should have won in the marketplace for decades. Why didn't they? it is because of an tilted playing field where people don't pay the full cost (including risk) for fossil fuels and nuclear at the gasoline pump or on their electric bill -- but instead they pay it in higher health care costs, taxes for the military, or government-absorbed risk like for nuclear meltdowns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute "The Lovinses described the "hard energy path" as involving inefficient liquid-fuel automotive transport, as well as giant centralized electricity-generating facilities, often burning fossil fuels such as coal or petroleum, or harnessing a fission reaction, greatly complicated by electricity wastage and loss. The "soft energy path" which they wholly preferred involves efficient use of energy, diversity of energy production methods (and matched in scale and quality to end uses), and special reliance on "soft technologies" (alternative technology) such as solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal. According to the Institute, large-scale electricity production facilities had an important place, but it was a place that they were already filling in the middle 1970s; in general, more would not be needed. In a 1989 speech, Amory Lovins introduced the related concept of Negawatt power, in which the creation of a market for trading increased efficiency could supply additional electrical energy to consumers without increasing generation capacity—such as building more power plants."