Scheer leaves himself open to claims he’s in cahoots with Big Oil

[chuckChuck]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Oil-industry-s-future-not-as-bright-as-13579097.php

"A key wild card that flummoxes analysts with surprising frequency is consumer behavior.

Consumers ultimately decide long-term prices by how much they demand, and to be honest, few of them love the oil industry. Analysts have consistently underestimated the adoption of alternatives to oil and natural gas, particularly renewable energy and electric vehicles.

The EIA predicts, for example, that electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles will only make up 8 percent of new-vehicle sales in 2025. Sales will rise to just 25 percent of the market share in 2050. If this is true, the oil and gas industry has nothing to worry about.

On HoustonChronicle.com: Tesla and oil companies lose market share as luxury brands roll out electric cars

Auto manufacturers, though, tell a different story. From GM to Ford, from Volkswagen to Daimler, from Toyota to Nissan, these companies expect electric vehicles to surpass liquid-fueled vehicles by 2030. The main reason is China and the eight other nations that plan to ban internal combustion engines by 2050.

There is also the question of economics. The cost of electric vehicles is plummeting, and most analysts believe they will be cheaper than regular cars by 2025. The next generation of electric vehicles will be as transformative to the energy industry as the shale revolution.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which also makes predictions, expects electric vehicles will make up 64 percent of the new-vehicle market by 2040.

Shell, BP and Chevron seem to think so, too. The first three have already invested in electric car charging businesses, and Exxon Mobil is considering a similar investment, according to a report by The Atlantic Council.

Smart oil and natural gas executives understand the risk electric vehicles pose to their fossil fuel businesses, which is why they are keeping costs low to make a profit at $50 crude. If they allow prices to rise, electric vehicles will become cost-competitive sooner."

[chuckChuck]

Jazz, I am in agreement that renewables currently can't save the planet. But predicting what mix of diverse energy sources we will be using in 25, 50, 100, or 500 years from now is a impossible to know. Because there are too many unknown factors that will affect our choices.

Based on the concern about human caused climate change and the worldwide push for reduced carbon emissions I wouldn't bet on fossil fuels playing the same role as they do now.

BP, Shell and Chevron are investing in electric car charging systems. Do you think they are doing it because they want a greener world? Why would Ford be building an all electric F150 if they thought gas and diesel were the only ways to power vehicles?

[chuckChuck]

Before everyone has a hissy fit I am well aware of the intermittent nature and the current limitations of solar energy but here are some facts to consider:

What is the Potential of Solar Energy?

174 petawatts (PW) of energy comes in form of solar radiation (or insolation) hits our atmosphere. Almost one third of this is reflected back into space. The rest, 3 850 000 exajoules (EJ) every year, is absorbed by the atmosphere, clouds, oceans and land – one hour of insolation is the equivalent to more than the world’s energy consumption for an entire year. Solar energy is by far the largest energy resource on the Earth.

(Petawatt is a power measurement unit. Petawatt (PW) is a derived metric measurement unit of power. The petawatt is equal to one billion millions watts 1 petawatt = 1 341 022 090 000 horsepower. https://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/power/petawatt)

Here are some other interesting comparisons to help make you grasp the massive potential of solar energy:

One year’s worth of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth would be twice the amount of all non-renewable resources, including fossil fuels and nuclear uranium.
The solar energy that hits the Earth every second is equivalent to 4 trillion 100-watt light bulbs.
The solar energy that hits one square mile in a year is equivalent to 4 million barrels of oil.

[furrowtickler]

We are all absolutely dependent on fossil energy and the jobs and lifestyle that go with it. But that shouldn't stop us from thinking about and planning for a future with less.

This will be a long transition that will go on past our lifetimes and that of our children and our grandchildren.

Endless growth, resource depletion and degradation of the environment are not an option for a finite world.

We already have a lot of the technology and ability to reduce fossil energy use through increased efficiency, better design of buildings and cities and many sources of renewable and cleaner energy. We are not currently using all these options at their full potential for various reasons.

Many posters on this site are resistant if not hostile to change. But change has and will occur regardless of the which politicians are in charge.

Look back a 150 years and consider all the dramatic and incremental changes that occured and how little we knew about what the future would bring and how we would live and work in 2020. All the way From hand and animal power to DOT Autonomous Farm Technology and GPS.

I am sure that along the way there were a lot of people who didn't like the changes, lost their jobs, couldn't afford the new technology and said the new technology would never work.

A lot of us have made changes and continue to do so . Some far more than you think. But for some reason you put yourself as preacher of the climate crusade , yet others are quietly doing more than you or other crusader. Just because some of us disagree as to the alarming extent of climate change does not mean we are not doing our part . That’s just plain b/S . And you know it, you just continue to spout off .

[jazz]

There is no payback on solar or wind without tax payer subsidies. The energy is not concentrated enough to be put to practical use other than a few panels on homes here and there. The appetite for a home owner to take on specialized equipment with maintenance costs and a payback time that matches its life cycle is not going to happen in masse. But by all means a little program to encourage people to throw up a few panels to offset 1/3 of their bill might be feasible, but then other solutions are more feasible such as energy upgrades - insulation, furnace, appliances.

Watch the vid about renewables and how much land and damage to nature they did. Wildlife having to be relocated for panels. Useful farmland converted in addition to urban sprawl. Birds bats getting chopped to bits in windmills and cooked by the excess heat.

Only nuclear has a chance to offset fossil fuels and the environmental movement blocked it once already and now are doing it again.

[chuckChuck]

Furrow. What is the point of posting on public discussion forums if you are not prepared to hear different opinions and points of view?

If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, start your own private chat group and invite your like minded friends.

[jazz]

What is the point of posting on public discussion forums if you are not prepared to hear different opinions and points of view?

If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, start your own private chat group and invite your like minded friends.

Chuck you are in a mild form of denial because you perhaps do not understand that the factors of production directly related to our lifestyle and survival and evolution as a species rely on super concentrated forms of energy. That's ag, transport, resources, construction, travel, electricity etc. Once you accept how much of our energy usage is dedicated to our standard of living and very survival, then you will understand that panels can never replace that. Do they have a use? Well sure, maybe 20% of grid energy could be renewable based, but then that load needs backup because its not reliable, so we need double the infrastructure. Including backup fossil fuel infrastructure that needs to be in place and you see quickly those renewables are a farce.

The natives near regina have a windmill and a 10 mw solar farm. Today the windmill is shut down cause its too windy and the panels are covered with snow. Where are they getting their energy from now?

[chuckChuck]

There is no payback on solar or wind without tax payer subsidies. The energy is not concentrated enough to be put to practical use other than a few panels on homes here and there. The appetite for a home owner to take on specialized equipment with maintenance costs and a payback time that matches its life cycle is not going to happen in masse. But by all means a little program to encourage people to throw up a few panels to offset 1/3 of their bill might be feasible, but then other solutions are more feasible such as energy upgrades - insulation, furnace, appliances.

Watch the vid about renewables and how much land and damage to nature they did. Wildlife having to be relocated for panels. Useful farmland converted in addition to urban sprawl. Birds bats getting chopped to bits in windmills and cooked by the excess heat.

Only nuclear has a chance to offset fossil fuels and the environmental movement blocked it once already and now are doing it again.

Insulation and efficiency upgrades are the first best option.

Every option has some downside and cost. Nuclear is expensive to build, waste storage is a challenge.

Solar panels will pay for themselves without subsidies and can be put on existing roofs and buildings. They require backup or storage, but they are a viable and affordable option right now that is cheaper than Saskpower farm rates. Panels will need to be recycled.

Saskpower is investing in a lot of wind and some solar, gas, and imports from Manitoba but there are no plans for new coal plants.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck you are in a mild form of denial because you perhaps do not understand that the factors of production directly related to our lifestyle and survival and evolution as a species rely on super concentrated forms of energy. That's ag, transport, resources, construction, travel, electricity etc. Once you accept how much of our energy usage is dedicated to our standard of living and very survival, then you will understand that panels can never replace that. Do they have a use? Well sure, maybe 20% of grid energy could be renewable based, but then that load needs backup because its not reliable, so we need double the infrastructure. Including backup fossil fuel infrastructure that needs to be in place and you see quickly those renewables are a farce.

The natives near regina have a windmill and a 10 mw solar farm. Today the windmill is shut down cause its too windy and the panels are covered with snow. Where are they getting their energy from now?

Even coal and nuclear plants don't run all the time because they need to be shut down for maintenance and eventual replacement.

I am not advocating that we stop using fossil fuels until we have viable replacements.

If renewables like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are a farce, you better tell Saskpower because they are planning to use a lot more of them. And yes we still need baseload but with more renewables you use less fossil supplies which is the reason they want to use them.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Furrow. What is the point of posting on public discussion forums if you are not prepared to hear different opinions and points of view?

If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, start your own private chat group and invite your like minded friends.

Coming from anyone else, I would consider that excellent advice, but coming from the most intolerant closed minded person I have ever met in person or online, that was the best joke I've heard all day, and with the day I am having, dealing with all this white global warming, I really needed one, so thanks.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Insulation and efficiency upgrades are the first best option.

Every option has some downside and cost. Nuclear is expensive to build, waste storage is a challenge.

Solar panels will pay for themselves without subsidies and can be put on existing roofs and buildings. They require backup or storage, but they are a viable and affordable option right now that is cheaper than Saskpower farm rates. Panels will need to be recycled.

Saskpower is investing in a lot of wind and some solar, gas, and imports from Manitoba but there are no plans for new coal plants.

I have asked you this before with no response. Right now, with solar as only a few percent of the total, you can use the grid as storage and only increase the costs to everyone else by a substantial but tolerable level. Now, can you possibly put aside your aversion to math, and do a simple extrapolation? What happens when everyone on the grid does exactly what you did, and tries to add grid tied solar panels to meet their entire needs, using the grid as storage. At peak sun, generation will exceed consumption by an order of magnitude, you ( and everyone else), will be paying the electricity provider exorbitant rates just to get rid of the excess, there will not be a scenario where you will ever get paid for your solar power, since whenever the sun is shining, there will be a glut. I don't think I need to explain what will happen on winter nights, under this scenario, and what the resulting costs will be. So you will then have all of the legacy costs of the solar installation, the cost of dumping the excess onto an over saturated grid, plus when you do need to buy the power back in winter and at night, it will be from much more inefficient, and therefore expensive peaking generating sources. It is essentially a pyramid scheme, where those who get in early make out well, but in the end, everyone loses.

And you don't need to go to 100% to have that effect, at this latitude, anything much over single digits will cause costs to go parabolic.

[jazz]

Let me relay my experience with energy efficiency. In 2008 nat gas was almost $7 per GJ. More than 3 times what it is now. Well those bills and my desire to do something environmental lead me to put in a $20k geothermal system. So all good we start running it. Works pretty good. Then gas starts dropping and electricity starts increasing. Geo needs an eclectic pump running all the time circulating. So no big deal, my gas bill dropped and my power increased. Meanwhile gas fell to $2 GJ. Then electricity kept increasing and increasing and pretty soon, it was less money just to turn off the geothermal.

One winter I tried running the geo thermal full out to run our home in a polar vortex. I got a power bill close to $2000. We dropped the geo back to just supplemental heat and let the NG heat the house. Brought the bills in line but still high. Now the carbon tax has been applied which would raise elect bills again. So in response the geo system is now turned off. We put R60 in the attic, found some little efficiencies here and there. The geo guys are trying to convince me to put up panels offset my geo costs. its all just a giant shell game. But no more expensive equipment with uncertain economics.

[fjlip]

It is all BULLSHIT, here is a explanation for simple folk. http://humansarefree.com/2018/11/all-lies-about-global-warming-debunked.html http://humansarefree.com/2018/11/all-lies-about-global-warming-debunked.html

I like this...If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest; that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain.

This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures (for which there is no precision data[3]), except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known.
So why believe WAGs? Any number could be right or wrong.

Now the news is Oil Sands emissions are 60% higher but were measure once in 2013 with instruments in a plane. All other numbers are calculations, so just say we met our targets and NOBODY is calculating any way to dispute us!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Let me relay my experience with energy efficiency. In 2008 nat gas was almost $7 per GJ. More than 3 times what it is now. Well those bills and my desire to do something environmental lead me to put in a $20k geothermal system. So all good we start running it. Works pretty good. Then gas starts dropping and electricity starts increasing. Geo needs an eclectic pump running all the time circulating. So no big deal, my gas bill dropped and my power increased. Meanwhile gas fell to $2 GJ. Then electricity kept increasing and increasing and pretty soon, it was less money just to turn off the geothermal.

One winter I tried running the geo thermal full out to run our home in a polar vortex. I got a power bill close to $2000. We dropped the geo back to just supplemental heat and let the NG heat the house. Brought the bills in line but still high. Now the carbon tax has been applied which would raise elect bills again. So in response the geo system is now turned off. We put R60 in the attic, found some little efficiencies here and there. The geo guys are trying to convince me to put up panels offset my geo costs. its all just a giant shell game. But no more expensive equipment with uncertain economics.

Guaranteed that the solar panels Chuck installed will end up the same way, as the rules change, and the full cost ends up being born by the owner, instead of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits as is happening now with solar.

[fjlip]

Warren Buffet, who owns one of the largest wind farms in Iowa, said it without embarrassment:
“On wind power, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. This is the only reason to build them. They do not make sense without the tax credit.”
The ecological balance is just as bad: onshore wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands, even millions of birds and bats per year. As for wind turbines at sea, they kill many marine mammals, again in the utmost indifference of ecologists.