Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

[Horse]

Burnt can you do all your field work on 1 tank of fuel.no ??I guess that would mean fossil fuel in unstanable
The gov is very wasteful with our taxes whereas the oil co are very efficient at hiding there money so no one knows how much they are getting, and with people like burnt, klause sing their praises they just go merrily along living the dream.

[Klause]

Burnt can you do all your field work on 1 tank of fuel.no ??I guess that would mean fossil fuel in unstanable
The gov is very wasteful with our taxes whereas the oil co are very efficient at hiding there money so no one knows how much they are getting, and with people like burnt, klause sing their praises they just go merrily along living the dream.

And people like you and Chuck Live in a fantasy world with no idea how economies energy systems factories or business works - and unwilling to learn.

Horse you hate the energy industry and oil workers so much.... I hope you heat your house with wood, use no plastics and farm with horses. Because unless your doing that you are relying on those evil oil field workers and oil companies.


A Saskpower linesman. a GMC auto plant worker. A nurse. A potash mine worker. A plumber. A carpenter. An electrician. A mechanic. They all make the same hourly wage as somebody who works in the patch so give it an effing rest. I'd you can't compete with go-getters that's your problem not theirs.

[checking]

Actually cc., intermittent is not the same as reliable. So yes, for reliability purposes and security, I am prepared to subsidize fossil fuels over subsidizing intermittent systems, and subsidizing fossil fuel systems concurrently.
Two bills and one pocket leads to "can society afford it".

[burnt]

Intermittent is not the same as unreliable. If solar or wind is producing watts then less coal, gas or hydro is being used. Try to spin it however you want. Here is some proof that renewables are not unreliable:

Germany has been getting up to 85 percent of its electricity from renewable sources on certain sunny, windy days this year. The BEE reported on Sunday the overall share of wind, hydro and solar power in the country's electricity mix climbed to a record 35 percent in the first half.Jul 3, 2017

"The share of renewable electricity use is high in Sweden; hydro, wind, and solar power together accounted for 49.8% of the electricity produced in the country in 2014 (when measured against national electricity consumption, however, this amount rises to 55.5%).

Unreliable?? LOL

This thread is about subsidies to fossil fuel. Are you in favour of subsidizing fossil fuels?

Check your privilege there chucky - if you, like some I know, were dependent on a steady supply of electricity to keep their life-giving equipment running, you'd think green energy was damned unreliable, not just intermittent.

My daughter works in a third world medical center where electricity is intermittent - thus, unreliable.

And GUESS what chucky - she sees babies and children die because there is no electricity to run the oxygen generator. It just about breaks her heart and there's no more helpless feeling than watching a baby gasp for breath as it slowly dies because the power is down.

Does that help you to better understand the importance of reliable?

By supporting dependency on unreliable systems, you are advocating for a decline in living standards to third world levels.

And I'm not going to sit back and let some mentally, morally and socially challenged idiots tell me that I have to accept that decline.

[Horse]

Klaus think what you like but no I don't hate oil workers and oil is not my god, but when I see some of the things that goes on in the patch it posses me off same as when I see gov pies away my tax dollars and I don't think I am being unkind just realistic.
Now instead of cooling me names we could discuss some of the wastes I see Mabry you could enlighten me and other oil haters on how the buis are so damn good.

[sawfly1]

i thought we had lots of gas, burn that when the environmental
choices are not putting out.

eventually the planet will run low on fossil fuels.
we will have to adapt sometime. save the fossil fuels for where they are needed most.
or at least until technology , finds us cleaner sources.

it does not hurt to have both.
it is not either or.
we pretty much have to run with both

[oneoff]

Maybe it doesn't help to mention this again....

But chuck's preferred Saskpower 10 MW solar demonstration site at Estevan SK didn't get built on schedule. Could it be he didn't lobby the RM councillors quite hard enough to give up the site it was planned to be built on. And SaskPower simply built the first project someplace else.


Come to think about...I doubt he had enough personal interest to even get involved in local matters. Not enough to gain compared to the much safe and easier fighting the world battles from half way around the world??? . Much the same as his own sit on the fence attitude until it makes enough personal business sense to show "leadership" and jumping in with something a bit bigger than maybe a solar powered calculator.

Talk is really cheap.

[oneoff]

And in the interest of clarity; it should also be mentioned again that any "nameplate" green energy production should be drastically derated to account for little details like occasional night time darkness; winter on the prairies (particularly December and January doldrums for solar panels); lack of wind sufficient to turn turbines, the odd hurricane or even 130km wind gust as recently at Moose Jaw etc. etc. Look on Youtube for a windmill's total destruction. Best not to be within a half mile or so; whenever that reoccurring circumstance comes around again.

But never will this cross those minds; or be factored into a crusade with some utopian unattainable goal meant to cripple others; but not necessarily apply to oneself.

Like Manitoba's $25/tonne carbon tax that might raise $250 million for government coffers. Sure sounds like its new wealth for a government that has already has lost sight of returning much to renewable energy initiatives. That wasn't how that "carbon tax" was sold to the public only months ago.

[oneoff]

This just in from the Sask Power websites





The Small Power Producers Program has reached the maximum limit of customer generation capacity, providing a total 7.5 MW of power. We are not accepting any additional applications at this time and ask that customers hold any outstanding applications until new programs are available.


Comment: Sask is still not to the stage where we really have a clue of where our future power production will come from. "Someone" else will decide...and just look at insurmountable hoops for any smaller "Independent Power Producer". The big boys are the only ones that will participate in anything meaningful.

[Hamloc]

A large part of the subsidies calculated are hidden like health and environmental costs. A smaller portion is tax and royalty incentives and direct subsidies.

It seems like in Canada the bigger problem is low royalties. Some of that may be justified because of high production costs but oil companies drove up costs in the boom on their own with out of control development and growth. There is an argument that low royalty rates encouraged companies to grow but not be efficient and cost effective.

How we as owners have some of the lowest royalty rates in the world is the biggest question? It seems like governments have acted in the interests of oil companies and not the citizens. Notley and the NDP seem to be no different on royalties. Stelmach was turned back on this issue. Are we electing corrupt gutless governments?

So really a large part of the cost is an arbitrary number which is someone's opinion of the health and environmental costs. What is the human health cost in countries where the only cooking fuel might be dried animal dung and the poor air quality that would create in your home environment.

How about looking at it another way. What is the corresponding benefit to modern society of the existence and use of fossil fuels. Without fertilizer how much less food production would there be in the world? As Burnt points out, how many lives are saved by the existence of dependable sources of power, in our country dependable sources of heat. Here is another question Chuck2, which came first, the solar panel or fossil fuels? My point is you can't build a solar panel or for that matter a windmill without fossil fuels. My point is, does the benefit to modern society of fossil fuels outweigh the theoretical costs? Secondly when you subsidize solar power as an example who gets the benefit? I would say a manufacturing company in China is first in line, second would be the importer, third the installer. When you subsidize fossil fuels more of the benefit would be local. Alberta companies build drilling rigs but don't manufacture solar panels or windmills. Our oil resource is in the ground in Alberta and when it is extracted we do get a royalty. When a solar panel is built we get no royalty. Environmentalists look at only one side of the equation and that is the cost, what about the benefit?

[chuckChuck]

We are finally getting somewhere in that we now acknowledge that fossil energy sources are subsidized directly and indirectly. The bill in Canada is $3 billion in direct subsidies much of which goes to western Canada. There are large hidden subsidy costs as well.

So the question of whether we subsidize or encourage renewables is a matter of policy choice. There are those who lack vision and are willing to argue against new technology for a variety of reasons. Most people are pragmatic and say that if it works and makes economic sense then it is good.

SaskPower is committed to installing significant wind capacity and some solar. They must be viable options for increasing capacity or why would SaskPower be going ahead?

[oneoff]

Well things like "flex fuel" powered vehicles..and the already 4 attempts at Tier emissions and DEF solutions are way beyond what are obvious costs.

Those things are just a complete wastes of money.


They are examples of attempts at forcing a solution at any cost.