Energy East Pipeline

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

So how much energy does cost production of solar panel?
And how long this panel has to work to generate that amount of energy?

Also once we go 100% to electric... how you are going to produce, so much power?

Solar panels aren't the only way to produce electricity from solar. 

Marocco has just opened a large thermal solar collector plant in the Sahara desert:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/08/africa/ouarzazate-morocco-solar-plant/

Edited March 7, 2016 by Nibb31

[K^2]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

So how much energy does cost production of solar panel?
And how long this panel has to work to generate that amount of energy?

Depending on a battery, about quarter to half of the battery's average life-time will be necessary to recover the energy used in production. Which explains why they have such high up-front costs.

However, it was less than a decade ago that it took more energy to produce a solar panel than it could generate in its life. So the only advantage was shipping off pollution to other countries. Fortunately, we're past that point, and solar panels are rapidly improving.

Even more fortunate, solar panels aren't the only way to generate power on industrial scale. A lot of places would do better with solar collectors. They come with problems we still need to resolve, like frying birds in mid-flight, but if we bury the collectors instead of building up, we can avoid that unfortunate side-effect.

In either case, solar is booming in US and Europe, with industrial nations expected to follow soon. Even with total lack of environmental oversight, solar energy is getting close to competitive in places like China. And once solar becomes cheap enough to start driving down actual costs of electricity for the industry and consumer, we'll see major changes introduced into transportation network. Many large cities already find it efficient to run public transit on electric, be it in form of trains or trolley buses. But imagine the sort of change we'll see when NYC cabs switch to electric cars, for example. Or all the rigs on the freeways. And it's not science fiction. We are really close to the breaking point where that will be simply cheaper for transportation companies to do that. How long do you think consumer market for gasoline cars last after that?

[Darnok]

39 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Depending on a battery, about quarter to half of the battery's average life-time will be necessary to recover the energy used in production. Which explains why they have such high up-front costs.

We are really close to the breaking point where that will be simply cheaper for transportation companies to do that. How long do you think consumer market for gasoline cars last after that?

I read somewhere that after half of panel life-time its efficiency drops to about 50% (not verified) IF that is true then solar panels are not the future energy source we are looking for.

How long solar energy market can last if governments stop funding it from our taxes? Gasoline or coal are not clean energy sources, I agree with that, but they are efficient from economical perspective, of course in free market environment. But right now we have government driven market... so from economical perspective those energy sources that are funded from taxes are more beneficial.

Another things are how much chemicals and pollution you have to generate during production of solar panels?
How much this technology depends on weather. I doubt it in Canada or UK you have enough light during year to make it main energy source and if country can't be independent in this critical branch... well it isn't independent in any other as well.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Darnok

[shynung]

Before we go further to reducing energy demand met by oil, I'd like to ask something.

Is there something, some sort of resource, that we cannot get from anywhere else but oil?

[Elthy]

Why is Solar allways mentioned first when it comes to renewables? Wind power is better in most ways and (at least in germany) more widely used...

There are byproducts of oil-refinig besides hydrocarbons, e.g. lots of sulfur. Those have to be replaced, too.

 

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Why is Solar allways mentioned first when it comes to renewables? Wind power is better in most ways and (at least in germany) more widely used...

There are byproducts of oil-refinig besides hydrocarbons, e.g. lots of sulfur. Those have to be replaced, too.

 

Wind is least reliable energy source from all we can use today.

And it sounds funny, but what is wind power plan impact on local environment?
It has to have some kind of impact since physics says we can't drain energy from environment and do not cause side effects/reaction/whatever you call it.

[Ignath]

7 hours ago, Darnok said:

I read somewhere that after half of panel life-time its efficiency drops to about 50% (not verified) IF that is true then solar panels are not the future energy source we are looking for.

How long solar energy market can last if governments stop funding it from our taxes? Gasoline or coal are not clean energy sources, I agree with that, but they are efficient from economical perspective, of course in free market environment. But right now we have government driven market... so from economical perspective those energy sources that are funded from taxes are more beneficial.

Another things are how much chemicals and pollution you have to generate during production of solar panels?
How much this technology depends on weather. I doubt it in Canada or UK you have enough light during year to make it main energy source and if country can't be independent in this critical branch... well it isn't independent in any other as well.

I would challenge you to actually dig in and see how much the government "funds" Oil & Fossil Fuels on a yearly basis.  The amount of money put into the solar energy market by the government is a pittance compared to the giveaways that occur to big fossil fuels every single day.

[Elthy]

Also dont forget that every Dollar/Euro/whatever spend now to "subsidize" renewables will be saved several times in the future...

[Laie]

3 hours ago, shynung said:

Is there something, some sort of resource, that we cannot get from anywhere else but oil?

I don't think so. It's main benefit in making (eg) plastics is that oil is both the material input and the energy source driving the conversion. Developing similar processes that take (say) corn stalks for input would probably be possible, and if push comes to shove you can start with synthesizing hydrocarbons from scratch. Would require lots of energy and be quite involved, but hey, you only ask about what's possible. I won't try to judge if it could be practical.

There may be side benefits, similar to Helium being found alongside natural gas, but I'm not aware of any.

That said, I too am opposed to exploiting the Alberta tar sands. As fossil fuels go, these are about the worst.

[fredinno]

 

5 hours ago, shynung said:

Before we go further to reducing energy demand met by oil, I'd like to ask something.

Is there something, some sort of resource, that we cannot get from anywhere else but oil?

Nothing, since you can syntesise hydrocarbons. However, unless you're in space, this is uneconomical, so fossil fuels are the way to go.

Hell, you can make plastics out of CO2 and/or Methane.

4 hours ago, Elthy said:

Why is Solar allways mentioned first when it comes to renewables? Wind power is better in most ways and (at least in germany) more widely used...

There are byproducts of oil-refinig besides hydrocarbons, e.g. lots of sulfur. Those have to be replaced, too.

 

Indeed. Large hydroelectric is booming in China, and likely to boom in India too once they get their economy running.

Small hydroelectricity is also very useful if you have lots of mountains and water.

Wind is still cheaper than solar, though more intermittent.

Conventional Geothermal is limited by location, but it's cheap, and can be used as baseline power, if managed properly.

Deep Geo hopefully will take off, the tech used is used in oil drilling and fracking and is well understood.

 

All ocean-based power is likely a wet dream due to costs though. Unless you're talking about putting tidal turbines in the bay of Fundy. THEN, we're talking.

[Darnok]

2 hours ago, Ignath said:

I would challenge you to actually dig in and see how much the government "funds" Oil & Fossil Fuels on a yearly basis.  The amount of money put into the solar energy market by the government is a pittance compared to the giveaways that occur to big fossil fuels every single day.

Ok, then show me evidence for fossil fuels and I will show you for "clean" energy.

 

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Also dont forget that every Dollar/Euro/whatever spend now to "subsidize" renewables will be saved several times in the future...

I doubt it you can save any money on maintenance of wind turbines in future.

In free market we developed technologies that offered best revenue and that were giving advantage over competition. But now developing new technologies is on hold, because people with money have no idea what will be next world-saving law created by eco-governments. So those rich people won't risk their money on things that can be disallowed/illegal in next few months. Instead of looking for NEW energy sources they are focusing on technologies allowed and funded by politicians... what may lead us to huge trouble in future, IF those technologies are dead end.

Now what if for 2-3 days in row there will be rain and lots of clouds? What if there will be no wind for few days? How many additional solar or wind power plants or batteries we need to cover such situations?
Those are costs you have to consider and those costs are not going to be lower in future and are not going to work for profit for most of the time. The less reliable energy source the larger backup infrastructure is needed in case of emergency.

 

[kunok]

10 hours ago, Darnok said:

I read somewhere that after half of panel life-time its efficiency drops to about 50% (not verified) IF that is true then solar panels are not the future energy source we are looking for.

You are guaranteed from most manufacturers 80% of nominal output at 20 years, and a lot offers it for 25 years.

[Ignath]

57 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Ok, then show me evidence for fossil fuels and I will show you for "clean" energy.

I just checked this entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

And scrolled down to United States and found this:

 

Quote

 

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
2. Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
3. Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
4. Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
5. Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)^[28]

Which shows me that in the present (last 3 - 5 years), we've (U.S.) been spending a larger percent of subsidies on renewable energy and energy efficiency.  Then I read a bit further down and find this:

 

Quote

 

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute^[30] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
2. Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
3. Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

1. Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
2. Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
3. Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

 

Which tells me that the trend I was seeing the previous data was something of a recent event and the 'apparent' renewable fuel subsidy that was given in the past was related to corn-based ethanol production (a net loser in the long run, but a money-maker for the ethanol gas companies).

Then take into account (in the US at least) the permanent subsidies that are built in to the tax codes for things like oil and coal.  When coal was a start-up industry (in the U.S.) in the late 1700s, it was given tax-free status, smelting was given incentives, and competing old-world coal imports were taxed at 10 percent. Four centuries later, coal is still receiving $5 billion in incentives a year. The result is coal-fired electricity at about US $0.04 per kilowatt-hour (when burned in power plants that are already built, the costs of which have already been passed along to ratepayers).

Meanwhile, solar, wind and renewable energies get things like start/stop subsidies that need to be renewed yearly or every few years on average.  This uncertainty drives markets higher because they never know if the support will be there in the future (uncertainty).

Another example would be the electric car market and what Cheverolet <link to IMDB - Who killed the electric car> did to the electric car way back in the 90's.  That in itself was one of the biggest subsidies the oil companies could ever get!

Edited March 7, 2016 by Ignath

[Elthy]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

I doubt it you can save any money on maintenance of wind turbines in future.

In free market we developed technologies that offered best revenue and that were giving advantage over competition. But now developing new technologies is on hold, because people with money have no idea what will be next world-saving law created by eco-governments. So those rich people won't risk their money on things that can be disallowed/illegal in next few months. Instead of looking for NEW energy sources they are focusing on technologies allowed and funded by politicians... what may lead us to huge trouble in future, IF those technologies are dead end.

Now what if for 2-3 days in row there will be rain and lots of clouds? What if there will be no wind for few days? How many additional solar or wind power plants or batteries we need to cover such situations?
Those are costs you have to consider and those costs are not going to be lower in future and are not going to work for profit for most of the time. The less reliable energy source the larger backup infrastructure is needed in case of emergency.

Im talking about not having to pay for stuff like storm damages, higher dams and, what most people forget, climate refugees. Just imagine what will happen when large parts of e.g. northern africa are not only poor, but also hit by life-threatening droughts. Elon Musk (i think noone here would call him stupid or naive) sharded this link a while ago: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

5 trillion per year is propably enough to equip the whole world with renewables within a few years, developing storage solutions (which are currently not that economicaly feasible due to how the energy market works) and building better nets.

Also you assume there will be no wind/solar everywhere for days. Thats extremly unlikely for larger areas (im sure the USA as a whole is big enough for such an effect), somewhere there is allways wind or sun, so they can supply the rest (of course argumented by storage). This would of course require colaboration of countrys with lower area, but oil is also limited to a few small patches across the world.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

Ok, then show me evidence for fossil fuels and I will show you for "clean" energy.

 

I doubt it you can save any money on maintenance of wind turbines in future.

In free market we developed technologies that offered best revenue and that were giving advantage over competition. But now developing new technologies is on hold, because people with money have no idea what will be next world-saving law created by eco-governments. So those rich people won't risk their money on things that can be disallowed/illegal in next few months. Instead of looking for NEW energy sources they are focusing on technologies allowed and funded by politicians... what may lead us to huge trouble in future, IF those technologies are dead end.

Now what if for 2-3 days in row there will be rain and lots of clouds? What if there will be no wind for few days? How many additional solar or wind power plants or batteries we need to cover such situations?
Those are costs you have to consider and those costs are not going to be lower in future and are not going to work for profit for most of the time. The less reliable energy source the larger backup infrastructure is needed in case of emergency.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Im talking about not having to pay for stuff like storm damages, higher dams and, what most people forget, climate refugees. Just imagine what will happen when large parts of e.g. northern africa are not only poor, but also hit by life-threatening droughts. Elon Musk (i think noone here would call him stupid or naive) sharded this link a while ago: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

5 trillion per year is propably enough to equip the whole world with renewables within a few years, developing storage solutions (which are currently not that economicaly feasible due to how the energy market works) and building better nets.

Also you assume there will be no wind/solar everywhere for days. Thats extremly unlikely for larger areas (im sure the USA as a whole is big enough for such an effect), somewhere there is allways wind or sun, so they can supply the rest (of course argumented by storage). This would of course require colaboration of countrys with lower area, but oil is also limited to a few small patches across the world.

Only problem is that you can get oil all the time, as long as you are willing to pay the price.

The enormous amount of transmission infrastructure, storage, and real estate (for wind and solar, unless you build on the ocean, which opens a whole new can of worms) makes renewables much more difficult than it seems- most particularly solar, waves, and wind, which are both intermittent and need lots of area.

[K^2]

19 hours ago, Darnok said:

I read somewhere that after half of panel life-time its efficiency drops to about 50% (not verified) IF that is true then solar panels are not the future energy source we are looking for.

How long solar energy market can last if governments stop funding it from our taxes? Gasoline or coal are not clean energy sources, I agree with that, but they are efficient from economical perspective, of course in free market environment. But right now we have government driven market... so from economical perspective those energy sources that are funded from taxes are more beneficial.

Another things are how much chemicals and pollution you have to generate during production of solar panels?
How much this technology depends on weather. I doubt it in Canada or UK you have enough light during year to make it main energy source and if country can't be independent in this critical branch... well it isn't independent in any other as well.

No, you don't understand. I'm taking into account the decline in power output. And I am not taking into account any subsidies from the government. Solar power is already flat out cheaper than fossil fuel electricity in most states and countries that have various environmental taxes against fossil. And very soon, it will be just flat out cheaper without any involvement from the government. That is the status quo.

Solar panels aren't the cleanest way to get solar, but the waste produced during manufacture of panels is much lower than that produced by burning coal. And more importantly, the greenhouse impact of solar panels can be zero.

And again, I point out that solar panels aren't the only way to get solar power. Solar collectors are virtually pollution-free.

[Nibb31]

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

The enormous amount of transmission infrastructure, storage, and real estate (for wind and solar, unless you build on the ocean, which opens a whole new can of worms) makes renewables much more difficult than it seems- most particularly solar, waves, and wind, which are both intermittent and need lots of area.

And how is that worse than the amount of transmission infrastructure, storage, and real estate for oil ? Look at all those refineries, pipelines, gas stations...

All you need to transfer power is a power line. A high voltage line across the mediterranean will be much cheaper than a fleet of tankers. Storage is a problem, but not unsurmountable. These new solar concentrator plants use a heat transfer fluid and molten salts to keep the fluid hot during the night so that the power output is constant.

[mikegarrison]

16 hours ago, shynung said:

Before we go further to reducing energy demand met by oil, I'd like to ask something.

Is there something, some sort of resource, that we cannot get from anywhere else but oil?

Yes. Oil itself. It's a tremendously useful complex chemical, one that we totally waste when we just burn it up.

[DerekL1963]

9 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

On 3/7/2016 at 6:43 AM, shynung said:

Is there something, some sort of resource, that we cannot get from anywhere else but oil?

Yes. Oil itself. It's a tremendously useful complex chemical, one that we totally waste when we just burn it up.

Oil is nothing by hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and a few trace contaminants - and we know how to synthesize it's derivatives from nothing but those raw materials.   The problem, and the reason oil itself is so useful, is that the synthesis process is very energy intensive.   But once you have spare energy, that's no longer a problem.

[mikegarrison]

35 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Oil is nothing by hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and a few trace contaminants - and we know how to synthesize it's derivatives from nothing but those raw materials.   The problem, and the reason oil itself is so useful, is that the synthesis process is very energy intensive.   But once you have spare energy, that's no longer a problem.

That's like saying space launches are easy as long as you are willing to spend lots of money. Yes, we can make synthetic oil, but why burn real oil and then spend way more energy making synthetic oil?

Edited March 8, 2016 by mikegarrison

[fredinno]

11 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

And how is that worse than the amount of transmission infrastructure, storage, and real estate for oil ? Look at all those refineries, pipelines, gas stations...

All you need to transfer power is a power line. A high voltage line across the mediterranean will be much cheaper than a fleet of tankers. Storage is a problem, but not unsurmountable. These new solar concentrator plants use a heat transfer fluid and molten salts to keep the fluid hot during the night so that the power output is constant.

You are missing a key reason this is so bad.

The infrastructure needed is new. Building new infrastructure is always unpopular- the current oil/ fossil fuels infrastructure was accumulated and maintained (and replaced) over many decades. If renewables are truly to take off any time soon, you need a LOT more infrastructure built within few decades. Not to mention you need much more real estate for energy overall (oil wells now are multiple wells extending from a single site via horizontal drilling, while most renewables take enormous amounts of space no matter what due to their low energy density)

There's a difference between having one large voltage line and 10 smaller ones, all over the place. The latter liquides a lot more people off.

27 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

That's like saying space launches are easy as long as you are willing to spend lots of money. Yes, we can make synthetic oil, but why burn real oil and then spend way more energy making synthetic oil?

Practically, there will always be enough in the deep oceans and tar sands for plenty of (non-burning) oil uses- at least for the next century (minimum).

[GDJ]

8 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Practically, there will always be enough in the deep oceans and tar sands for plenty of (non-burning) oil uses- at least for the next century (minimum).

Canada has more than enough for that.

Just the amount of oil Alberta has in the oil sands is staggering.

From what my Brother-in-law (oil exploration consultant) and my sister-in-law (1st class steam engineer, SUNCOR) have stated:
 

If the oil sands were represented by a stack of paper 1 metre high, and that's what we had before oil exploration started.
Now, remove 10 sheets.
That's how much oil we've extracted since 1950 until 2014.

Yeah, we're not running out anytime soon.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by GDJ

[Jovus]

9 minutes ago, GDJ said:

If the oil sands were represented by a stack of paper 1 metre high, and that's what we had before oil exploration started.
Now, remove 10 sheets.
That's how much oil we've extracted since 1950 until 2014.

Yeah, we're not running out anytime soon.

And that's assuming that crude oil isn't a renewable resource, which isn't at all for sure.

[mikegarrison]

17 minutes ago, GDJ said:

Canada has more than enough for that.

Just the amount of oil Alberta has in the oil sands is staggering.

From what my Brother-in-law (oil exploration consultant) and my sister-in-law (1st class steam engineer, SUNCOR) have stated:
 

If the oil sands were represented by a stack of paper 1 metre high, and that's what we had before oil exploration started.
Now, remove 10 sheets.
That's how much oil we've extracted since 1950 until 2014.

Yeah, we're not running out anytime soon.

 

It takes a lot of energy to get oil out of those tar sands. That's why they aren't very cost-competitive right now anyway.

[GDJ]

39 minutes ago, Jovus said:

And that's assuming that crude oil isn't a renewable resource, which isn't at all for sure.

 

31 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It takes a lot of energy to get oil out of those tar sands. That's why they aren't very cost-competitive right now anyway.

True and true, and right now with our Bitumen being shipped to the 'states for processing, it's not that good right now.
With the pipeline, it gets alot better or us since we are able to do the refining "in house", as in within Canada's Borders.

So yeah, short term, not great apart from alot of much needed jobs and skilled workers from Alberta and Saskatchewan, long term it's a moneymaker and benefit to everybody in Canada.

Quebec included.