When it is ze Germans, I wouldn't be too concerned. They may or may not hit the mark, but they'll always come close. The have both the smarts and the discipline to execute. In fact, I remember reading that over this past Christmas, they've had an overabundance of electricity available because of their extensive solar and wind energy farms.

France has also announced similar measures to wean themselves off ICEs -- stopping all ICE sales by 2040 -- but I wouldn't trust them to be able to pull it off like their northeastern neighbour can. They do have an extra 10 years compared to Germany, so we'll see how they do. But when it comes to political will and capabilities, I'd always trust Germany over France any day of the week.

And then there is Kalifornia... What am I even going to say? Are they still having running brown outs in the summer now? Are their current power plants even kept up with good maintenance? Undoubtedly, California can be very forwarding thinking and progressive in a lot of things, but I am really not sure how they can pull this no ICE car thing off...
:badpokerface:

Germany only has an abundance of power thanks to traditional coal burning, renewable only account for 1/3 of the energy... and this was made possible by incredible subsidies, hence the high cost of electricity passed on to the consumer.

Price by kWh in USD:

Germany 0.35
United Kingdom 0.22
United States 0.08 - 0.17 (.16 California)
Canada 0.06 - 0.15 (.15 Ontario)

Germany?s High-Priced Renewable Energy Revolution | Fortune

https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/m...png&w=700&q=85

IMO, having 1/3 of its electrical power needs coming from renewable sources at this point in time is nothing short of amazing. Yes, the (financial) costs are high, but in terms of being able to meet and deliver on the usage needs, it is absolutely amazing. Especially when you look at how the proportion of nuclear energy just plunges down since the mid-2000's.

Merkel didn't announced the phasing out of nuclear power plants until after the Fukushima disaster (2011), but the Germans already had enough foresight to start weaning themselves off nuclear before that. They had a vision; they acted on it, and they are making sure it will happen. That's how I view the Germans.

A high principle cost for renewables, and there is maintenance costs as well. I am hopeful that the prices will have a nice return in 10 years. Much like bchydro costs in the 90s and early 2000s.

Looking at that chart they have fearmongering idiots in charge. They may hit the mark, but they're aiming at the wrong one.

Why the hell are they decreasing nuclear? It's the best out of all of their options. They should be ramping that up to decrease their coal usage. What kind of plan is reducing a potent, safe option while remaining almost entirely dependent on fucking coal?

Fukushima.

After the melt down a number of countries decided the consequence of failure associated with nuclear power generation was too high... regardless of the probability of failure.

whats so amazing about it? i mean theyre decreasing their carbon but at what cost? is it really the best use of the countries limited resources to piss away that much money for feel good? is it going to make any real impact on global c02 emmisions?

i heard a quote one time on the subject, i wish i could remember it.

in effect it basically said "we could dump a trillio dollar into undeveloped technology now and make a very small change. or we could not spend/waste that money now, and wait until the technology is completely there and make an enormous change for much less cost in 20 years"

the idea being that spending fuck tons of money on completely inefficient and enormously subsidized 'green' energy now isn't getting us anywhere, and we could instead be benefiting on the high usage of the current energy (oil and gas are a huge contributor to canada's economy, and therefor, canadians benefit greatly from it). instead, wait the 20 or so years for the technology to get there, and then invest some of the money earned between now and then into it and make a real impact. the idea being in 50 years, we will be in the same place either way, why not take advantage of the economical benefits of oil now.

Maybe we won't need to reduce greenhouse gases if we recycle them.
This just seems genius

Two new ways to turn ?garbage? carbon dioxide into fuel | Science | AAAS

what magic technology will we have in 20 years that we don't have now?
and usually those estimations are rather optimistic...whatever we aim to have in 20 years may not come until 35 years

by then we'll be crowded with 3 billion more people, and god knows how many more will get a taste of first world living with a vehicle, fly to places for vacation, etc....the existing damage are already classified irreversibly (in the scale of human existence) and at an exponential rate...we simply can't wait around another generation or two hoping for more Einsteins

prices will not drastically come down if we don't start working towards it

You can make tremendous impacts for little capital costs by making existing equipment more efficient. Look at the impact BC Hydro’s Demand Side Management program has had, for example, which is a very low cost relative to capital projects for green tech. Stricter legislation on emissions (vehicle, industrial), improved fuel efficiency standards legislation, incentivize selecting green tech when replacing equipment and for new builds, etc.

Also, 20 years by current estimates is way too fucking late.

We need more pipelines! SwiftRage

As long as we love our cars, we will need more pipelines.

The funny thing about this spill is that it's probably about the same amount spilled by Lem's Auto over the last 20 years. Btw, they're the largest land owner in the shitty 10 block by 9 block town that is Doon, Iowa.

https://cdn.carbase.com/assets/lemsa...ot-of-lems.png

Journalism...

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...rt_a_23468557/

In this case the author is seemingly unaware that the 4.5B sale of the Trans Mountain "project" included 1.1B for the expansion project and 3.4B for the existing pipeline/stations/terminals.

Additionally, I can absolutely confirm that KMC has spent over 1B on the project as of March 2018, this was communicated internally back in April of 2018.

Consider that when Energy East was abandoned by Transcanada it was nowhere near as far along as TMEP (Approved by NEB, 8 months into construction) and yet Transcanada had already spent 1B.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...peline-project

When you factor in the opportunity costs KMC absolutely lost money selling the TMEP to the feds.

Most journalist are dumb as fuck. Can't get their info right let alone discounting potential cash flows of the project.

Trudeau made a great decision buying the pipeline but drew heat because most people turn blue when they read "taxpayers' dollars" and their brain turned into mush.

It is quite a risky investment from any stand point, especially if you consider the factors of a spill. It should also be considered that Kinder morgan isn't making much money in canada right now because of the price of oil being too low for the oil sands to be a major money generator like it was when oil was 100$ a barrel. This is the main reason why they're shipping dilbit through it instead of refined product, the only profits that could possibly be generated from it is if we shipped the lowest grade product possible. So at this point, we can't go any further down in price for our product or downgrade it to a lesser product to make some cash. so if something signifigant were to happen like a major spill or a major fall in oil price this entire pipeline will be a huge money pit for the taxpayers. Kinder morgan seen that and over sold the benefits of this project so we would go all in on it. now that we have, kinder morgan doesn't stand to lose anything from it... Genius plan from the makers of enron.

And in an interesting twist, the price of oil has jumped yet the oil sands are shutting down even though we will buy the pipeline. How long until we realize this economic strategy has more flaws than benefits? especially in the long run considering the state of the environment and our so called goals to protect it.

And as far as your immature blanket statement about journalists being dumb as fuck, maybe I can ask you something simple. What have you done to impact your community in the way of exposing essential information? Sure, there's some dumb fuck journalists out there, but there's a helluva lot of good ones that get way too much flack for exposing FACTS in this day and age.

I have 0 interest in fighting you. Exposing info isn't my job so I don't know why you are riding me. That's journalism's job. They saw a "headline" opportunity that the hoi polloi will go up in arms and they went for it.

Instead of sitting here blah blah NIMBY, take out a pen and paper or whip out Excel, make a bunch of assumptions and do a primitive DCF. It's not hard. Assume the pipeline don't go up in flame in the next 10-20 years, it's a great investment. Real asset generating CFs.

Trudeau made a very brave (knowing it is going to be controversial) decision but will very likely benefits Canada as a whole in the long term. This pipeline has been a head-scratcher in the investment community for years, now it is finally happening. We have oil. Oil is valuable. Let's get it out.

I really don't care for your political leaning. It's an economic decision, not a political one. Instead of get triggered for no reason, educate yourself.

Yeah, most journalists are dumb as fuck. Have you read the papers or watch the news lately?

^
While I don't agree that most journalists are dumb as fuck. I do agree that the pipeline was a brave decision (albeit made by a pussy), and that it was an economic decision.

Somewhat unrelated but I’ve mentioned this to a few people lately

I live approx 10 minute walk from Wall Street in East Van, for those unfamiliar Wall Street has numerous parks that look out over the north shore.

In the last 2 years of living here I’ve probably looked up at grouse mountain, I dunno, 200 times? I’ve only ever seen the wind turbine up there spinning ONCE..

I thought that wind turbine was a tourist attraction instead of a real generator

Costs more money to maintain the fuckers than any energy actually generated by them. Could say the same thing about anything Leed for that matter. Costs more and does very little.

it has a viewing platform which looks cool btw, but yea.. i remember the original plans being like "it's going to power grouse!" and its probably now along the lines of what Digitalis said

I have a LOT of experience w/ wind turbine power generation, normally we gather/analyze 5-10 years of wind data for a specific location before making the determination that the location in question is suitable for a profit-generating wind turbine power generation project.

The installation of a single wind turbine at the edge of Grouse Mountain was not intended to generate power, it was to generate an image.

RE: Everymans

You're post is polluted with misinformation, maybe you don't understand what a "fact" is?

A) Oil sands remain very profitable, take a good look @ Suncor's stock price and YoY earnings per share. (They are the single biggest oilsands producer) Yes a number of proposed "mega projects" have been postponed, this is because cash flow @ most major oil producers was greatly reduced during the oil glut, you don't start a 10B project while losing billions of dollars each quarter/year. As the price of oil stabilizes more and more projects will once again move ahead, it's a long term/stable supply of oil, there is a demand for it.

B) The price of oil has nothing to do with the price to transport oil, it doesn't matter if oil is $1/BBL or $100/BBL, the price to move it down the pipeline is fixed by long term service agreements typically 10-25 years in length.

C) Kinder Morgan Canada earnings are not impacted by low prices, they are impacted by low shipping volumes, and they have been operating at maximum capacity for decades.

D) The Trans Mountain pipeline ships both crude and refined fuel products, if there was foreign demand for finished/refined products we would export those products, the demand simply isn't there. You refer to dilbit as though there is no upgrading that takes place before the crude is shipped, this is simply not correct.

E) Refineries are generally built in locations to service immediate areas, consider the image below that shows the typical breakdown of a barrel of oil:

http://www.gravmag.com/oil13k.gif

Understand that by shipping the product as crude you only need ONE pipeline, that means crude can get from Fort Mac to Vancouver in ONE pipeline, it then arrives here and can be refined into a MANY products that are then shipped out short distances to the immediate area using transport trucks. (IE: Gasoline from Chevron in Burnaby to a Chevron store in White Rock)

If you break that barrel down at the location it is initially produced (IE: Fort Mac) you can no longer move the collection of products that make up a barrel down a single pipeline as the operating conditions and equipment for say gasoline can't be used to move asphalt, coke, liquified gasses etc.

If you were to refine products in Canada before exporting you would need a dozen unique tankers heading to a dozen unique customers on the other side of the planet. Logistically it simply doesn't work.

It's always good when someone with industry expertise comes in and owns the misinformed.

more wasteful shit have been built numerous times around here but I find it hard to believe they would install a wind turbine without doing some fairly basic research...?