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

[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.

[farming101]

It is interesting that in 1820 world average life expectancy was 29 years.
In 2015 it was 70.4 years.
World population in 1820 was thought to be around 1 billion. Now it is 7.4 billion.

Did burning hydrocarbons make things worse or better for the world in general? Is there any correlation?

[chuckChuck]

It is interesting that in 1820 world average life expectancy was 29 years.
In 2015 it was 70.4 years.
World population in 1820 was thought to be around 1 billion. Now it is 7.4 billion.

Did burning hydrocarbons make things worse or better for the world in general? Is there any correlation?

In developed countries our high standard of living is largely because of fossil energy. There is little doubt about that.

London England was many times under a deadly cloud of black smog caused by coal used for heating and industry. No doubt coal improved the standard of living in London but it came with a great cost.

"The Great Smog of London, or Great Smog of 1952 sometimes called the Big Smoke,[1] was a severe air-pollution event that affected the British capital of London in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants – mostly arising from the use of coal – to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December to Tuesday, 9 December 1952 and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.

It caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrating indoor areas, far more severe than previous smog events experienced in the past, called "pea-soupers". Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died as a direct result of the smog and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, about 12,000.[2]

London had suffered since the 1200s from poor air quality,[3] which worsened in the 1600s,[4][5] but the Great Smog is known to be the worst air-pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[6] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2][4] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956."

Air pollution from burning fossil fuels is still a major problem worldwide. It is one of the hidden costs (subsidy) of fossil energy. We also have climate change which is caused by all the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Both these problems can be resolved with reducing fossil energy use.

We will still need fossil energy untill viable, affordable clean energy options replace most of our fossil energy sources. We are in that transition now. Depending on what happens with technological development we may see little loss in our standard of living with a transition away from fossil energy. But burning fossil fuels for ever is not an option and it never was.

In many developing countries clean renewable energy is increasing the standard of living by bringing affordable electricity to many people who have never had it.

[burnt]

It's difficult to grasp the depth of stupidity and desperation that would compel one to use figures from the 1950's to argue against the benefits of using hydrocarbons.

That's pretty low for even you, chucky, and we really haven't come to expect much from you - beyond entertainment value.

And if you were honest, you would support your claim that "clean renewable energy is increasing the standard of living" in some places by adding the fact that there is no alternative in many of those places.

You also omit that fact that to create the equipment needed to produce that energy, some other place and time has has to accept the environmental cost (a subsidy) of producing those necessary, dirty components, and then disposing of the environmentally harmful spent components.

See what I did there chucky - used your own arguments to dismantle your baseless, biased premise LOL.

For the record, last year the IEA reported that 75% of the world's coal-fired plants were HEHE, (High efficiency, low emissions).

And now, the latest advancements out of - are you ready for this - Germany and Denmark are set to become even more efficient through the introduction of ultra-supercritical technology.

If less than half of coal-fired plants adopt this technology, this will move the CO2 output from coal generation to within the range needed to meet specific, reduced CO2 targets worldwide.

GERMANY!!! DENMARK!!! Two countries that chucky and cohorts like to hold up as models of solar and wind enery leaders!

Tell us this, chucky, if their "green energy" models are so good, why are they still developing better tech for coal-fired generation?

So the tech is there and increasingly coming into usage to utilize the 250 year coal supply under the ground in the USA.

[RWT101]

AGW and CAGW (Catastrophic AGW) are
The WORLD'S GREATEST HOAX

You can take all the CO2, methane and nitrous oxide out of the atmosphere and nothing would change.
We would still have ups and downs in temperatures.
And climate change would go on as it has since the beginning.

Charles Mackay must be laughing his head off in his grave.

He could have added another really large chapter to his book - EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS and the MADNESS OF CROWDS.

[blackpowder]

"We will still need fossil energy untill viable, affordable clean energy options replace most of our fossil energy sources. We are in that transition now. Depending on what happens with technological development we may see little loss in our standard of living with a transition away from fossil energy. But burning fossil fuels for ever is not an option and it never was."

Chuck makes an intelligent concession. So the argument then is how we manage the transition. So far I believe the argument has been used to increase taxes on everything for general revenue spending. A great sell job. Tailored by socialists for the public that no longer trusts business and wants ever more free stuff without responsibility. It's always been all about the money. Pipelines arent evil, they just cant pay off all the people who think because its under their land they are entitled to a never ending free lunch. When really, it is a duty to allow utilities that benefit all.
On royalties I am not qualified to speak. Nothing stops every citizen from profit sharing by public share ownership.
Not living in Toronto or Ottawa but in buttfk, I can too well imagine what it would look like with no resource jobs overnight. I still think we should shut the valve off for a night though.

[chuckChuck]

What's important to consider is the current state of fossil energy production and consumption has been shaped by direct and indirect subsidies on a global scale.

According to the International Monetary Fund the world total is $5.3 Trillion dollars of annual subsidies which amounts to 6 - 7% of the worlds economic output each year!

So in effect our high standard of living based on non-renewable fossil energy which we have become accustomed to, is highly subsidized especially since most of the worlds fossil energy is consumed in developed industrial countries.

So maybe some of you can stop complaining so much about the measley subsidies given to renewables. I doubt that will happen. LOL