I, for one, welcome our new Canadian Banking Overlords

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


One major reason, portability. You can't carry a hydro dam with you.

Yes, but you can find a way to ship its electricity around with high-voltage line technology.

[Ben Kenobi]

Still doesn't get you the density needed for cars and motor transport.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Good post Trai. Maybe it goes better in my thread though.

Which thread is that?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




It isn't because of local government opposition, but simple science that dictates the demand for oil and gas extraction. The only way to do the other way is to subsidise ineffecient technologies, and that's really not the way to go if you want to maximise your investment.

I'm rather surprised that environmentalists believe that it's because there's a cabal arrayed against them that their ideas are not adoopted. If anything, it's precisely the opposite. There's a cabal against things like nuclear which are clean, but taboo.

No, the simple science you refer to is the economics supply and demand, and we all know that this process is short-term. The market automatically reverts to an equilibrium with everything at its optimal price, provided there are no obstacles to trade like tariffs or subsidies. It's a natural thing that happens all the time.

The other way does not entail simple subsidising of 'inefficient technologies' like you say, but is revolutionary change in the frame of mind. The way we live, i.e. isolate houses and lay out of cities or how we use cars and other transportation. How we view our priorities in respect to health care, what kind of investments we choose.

An incentive could be that the government taxes clean energy less than standard oil fuel. That government may earn less income due to lower taxation on people who choose clean methods, but they would not need to spend the money on externalities such as treatment of pulmonic diseases caused by fine dust in car exhaust fumes. The government would not have to spend 5 billion dollars a week on a country with essential resources.

I'm just saying: y'need to think out of the box instead of a traditional view.

PS: about those 'inefficient' techs. You do know that there are many techs that are 'inefficient' although we keep using them everyday when there are perfect alternatives to them? Besides clean energy methods like solar power have been increasing in efficiency for years thanks to more research.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Traianvs
I'm wondering: if prices rise so rapidly and extraction from oil sand and oil fields that were previously too small to be viable for exploitation start being developed, then why don't we put the gigantic extra costs for more extraction research and actual extraction into more funds that increase clean energy techs?

Some are doing that. The Government of Alberta does that.

We have a lot of wind, so they are directly funding wind development. ~4% of our power comes from wind.

We burn coal for electricity, so they are spending billions on carbon capture.

But these things take time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Traianvs



Which thread is that?

Soros on Moyers: We need a new engine for the economy

No one is talking about the topic. I think we need to abandon this idea that we shouldn't pursue something because it doesn't bring as much profit as something else. That's how we got to this point. It's not the best thing for society.