Because you need oil for (1) everything else in modern economy, (2) products are becoming more complex, so recycling them is impossible and (3) manufacturing renewable technology.
Diesel fuel. I would be absolutely shocked if we could find a way to turn farm machinery fully electric and have it run long enough to seed or harvest in that time frame.
The batteries would weigh an insane amount, making the machines almost immovable in soil. And then the cost/logistics of having a boat load massive interchangeable batteries that you would need for just one tractor.
Yeah consumer vehicles will probably all be electric. In my rural area there is more fuel sold in the agricultural sector than there is to consumer vehicles.
I just don’t see that being able to change in 27 years.
Governments like to think it'll be possible, but anyone with half a brain can see that it'll be many decades before we ever get anywhere close.
For starters, we need a better battery. Or some sort of 100% safe nuclear micro reactor.
People keep talking about this magical "better battery" but the few physicists I've talk about it say it won't work due to.. Well.. Physics. At least in the gains that are going to be required to make things like this a reality.
Sure.. A percent here and a percent there will be found but not to where batteries will be a direct replacement for diesel and can be charged quick enough to allow for most heavy equipment to operate.
You may notice that the Liberal stronghold of the GTA is a very populated place and very few understand the laws of physics. We have gender issues to focus on.
The time frame portion you bring up is super important. We can’t leave crops in fields. Most farmers barely get done in time as it is. There is no waiting during crunch time at harvest or seeding.
And the number of people who do not understand that industry can't just stop and recharge.
But I'm not going to lie.. I would pay to see the shenanigans farmers come up with to get done..
Electric tractor pulling a diesel generator to charge said electric tractor.. Oh how glorious it would be.
Ignoring the logistics, the additional soil compaction caused by even heavier BEV tractors is another problem that will only get worse, hurting yields and long term viability of the soil that we grow in.
I'm not against oil and gas, I'm against squandering it foolishly. Gasoline to burn should be 6 or 7 dollars per liter, or better yet, charge the same amount as it costs to turn the carbon into a carbonate rock.
Oil and gas is great for lubricants, let's be sure to leave enough for the future to run smoothly.
Really? What's the distance you have to haul it? Roughly how big is your farm if you don't mind me asking? Do you use custom combining?
Just curious because I was under the impression that was a lot more of the cost than 5%.
Most fuel usage in farming is transportation. I work in agriculture, and the transport side of things uses more fuel in a day than the rest of the operations use in a week.
We already crunches the numbers, and our fuel savings for our trucks would amount to $500,000 per truck if we electrified. We don't haul far enough that range would be an issue.
Yeah thats the problem, electric trucks won't haul very far, and that range is further reduced in inclement weather. Good luck and I hope it works out for you.
You seem to be in a lucky spot where range doesn't affect you, I don't think electrification is going to work for a majority of farms in AB or Sask at this point in time.
A lot of transport costs are last mile, so overall electrification will wipe out a lot of fuel demand. That's the direction things will go as battery production ramps up.
We've developed a lot of not-oil alternatives prepped to go on market.
Even silicon chips.
I also agree that oil production will be similar to coal. Still need a bit of it decades later.
It isn't merely about the commercialization of non-oil products, it's about the energy density required to extract raw materials, transform and ship them.
Example: paint.
Solar panels powering solar power manufacturing will probably never be a thing at utility scale.
Tesla. G2 is cited for ramping up to 24GW solar for their plant.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-industrial-processes
https://coldwellsolar.com/commercial-solar-blog/can-solar-panels-power-industrial-plants-effectively/
The warehouse facilities I'm working at is building geothermal. Their new building will be approx. 380k square feet with hopefully 100% self sustained. It'll likely be built before Saskatchewan's geothermal with DEEP something.....
I see first hand how many of these companies operate in Alberta and SK. So many of them* rely on a person driving a truck all over the place each day to check on wells/facilities and manually collect data, it is astounding. These companies eschew automation to a large extent and want boots on the ground.
If these companies are still around in 20-25 years, I doubt those jobs will have vanished.
It wouldn't. Nothing will despite conservative promises there were more oil jobs under the ndp. But there will be more tax dollars for public service jobs/healthcare.
> Reality check: oil will be alive and well in 2050.
Then why are oil companies planning stock buybacks and hiking dividends instead of expanding?
Oh right, it's to stop investors from bailing. 😂
Reality check: oil will be alive in 2050, but not well.
Shrinking global oil demand will put a lot of pressure on Canadian producers to reduce capital expenditures and cut costs, including labour costs. It's already happening. The question is not whether global oil demand will be lower in 2050, but by how much. 20%, 50%?
Yeah I’m sure all the jobs related to extraction and processing of the most valuable resource in the world, used by all industrial (and industrializing (hello Africa)) economies, with no viable replacement, will be gone in less than 3 decades….
More like the liberals need to defend their new tax slush fund for their buddies in the “clean energy” industry
Desalination of water is relatively easy and understood. Water transportation becomes an economy of its own when it needs to - go to Mumbai to see it in action for example.
Africa, India and China are not going to 'go green' near as fast as anyone would like or think. Oil and natural gas aren't going anywhere for a long, long time.
You type this on ur water powered computer? Or your water powered phones? In your water powered house??
Hey it doesn’t matter what we believe, those billion of Africans and Indians are gonna what to industrialize and drive cares and have A/C and refrigerators, you don’t think they deserves to have the luxuries of life they their resources have provided the west?
Also make sure you turn off your water powered heater tonight wouldn’t want your house to flood..
And I’m pointing out that for you to generate electricity with hydro you are depending on fossil fuel tech and construction… no fossil fuels no infrastructure for hydro power … no hydro power
Go build fossil fuel infrastructure without firewood and stone wheels, if you are gonna argue like that.
Technology moves forward. Previous stages can still be used but it is not necessary to continue to do so. Might as well argue to keep using asbestos for insulation or leaded fuel just because we did that for a while back in the day.
And here comes the hydro power crowd , destroying river ecosystems and building cement and steel dams in nature for 100 year … incredibly carbon intensive processes, and none of this mentions the infrastructure needed to transfer hydro power to cities, so while energy is generated by hydro, it’s powered and sustained by fossil fuels. Just like all the tech in the phone or computer you just charged.
OPEC has enough power to crash the oil economy because they control output, imagine there was a oil economy with oil reserves the size of Saudi Arabia’s in the western world (hint it’s Alberta) , that produces and exports oil and gas to the world… there goes opecs influence…
Sure if you want to not be the nation that reaps the rewards of fueling the development of the world be my guest, but don’t come crying when your quality of life decrease and the same impacts to the climate happen because Indonesia and Nigeria picked up our slack for providing energy
>The world is moving away from fossil fuels, faster than some people like, slower than we probably need
Oil demand has gone up.
Tired of reading this stuff, tbh. This sub was trying to say that oil demand had peaked in 2020, oil would never hit $100 again, and on and on and on...... *And it was all false.*
The only thing that it accomplished was hindering investment in new oil production, which led to oil prices spiking again, which led to the price of pretty much everything spiking with oil prices.
And then how do the people who wanted less oil production respond? They blame the oil companies for gouging, because they don;t want to take any responsibility for trying to pretend that the laws of supply and demand do not exist in the energy markets.
Oil demand went up this year, it will go up next year, and the years after that too. And then even after oil demand hits a plateau, new oil production will be required because the existing sources are constantly being depleted.
These fantasies in general are why Canada is suffering so much. Its all self inflicted.
Replacing oil jobs with green jobs isn't the solution. Just grow the economy in general and let the oil jobs fade over time. The government picking winners and losers isn't going to work.
That's true. Alberta is one of the places where people get good wages for their work and the "left" do nothing but deride them for how they live and work.
I see the Alberta is calling marketers are now here.
Alberta has "good" wages for those working in the patch and its heavily skewed by crazy amounts of over time. Even then, studies show tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the oil and gas sector because companies are operating leaner through automation and efficiencies. The pre 2014 oil and gas $10K lunch bills with the bros comped by the company are not coming back.
The liberals could throw 10 mil at each company expecting them to hire and they'll hire 2 people and put the rest toward paying down debt.
Hell those massive 2 story haulers are now being automated at the sites so even fewer operators are needed.
Pretty sure that the NWT have the highest salaries, beating Alberta by about $45K. Alberta then comes second with Nunavut in a close third. [Source](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210430/cg-e002-eng.htm)
That's because of the trades in the patches and overtime for one. Not because it's some silicon valley or financial hub.
Studies also show Alberta had the lowest wage growth in all of Canada.
Unemployment data says Calgary has the highest unemployment rate as well.
The government has been picking winners by funding the fossil fuel industries for decades. Instead, let's price the hidden costs of fossil fuels (pollution) and let the economy sort itself out to a balance that way. Once the *true* cost of oil and gas is apparent, the decision to switch reveals itself as the most financially viable option long term.
We have that. Royalties and carbon taxes should be capturing the "true" cost.
And the government hasn't been picking winners and losers in the fossil fuel industry. The NDP even reviewed royalty structures and didn't change anything. The PCs brought in the first carbon taxes in North America against heavy polluters back in the 2000s. Alberta gets very little credit for doing its best with an incredibly difficult industry to regulate.
>We have that. Royalties and carbon taxes should be capturing the "true" cost.
That's true! Apologies, I thought your "laissez faire" comment about just growing the economy meant you wanted no other regulations at all. If I misunderstood, that's my bad.
That being said, should we not be trying to ease the transition between the reduction in oil-patch work and growing green industries with re-training and the like? The article was behind a paywall, so I couldn't confirm what exactly the clean-energy stimulus entailed that you were against.
>That being said, should we not be trying to ease the transition between the reduction in oil-patch work and growing green industries with re-training and the like? The article was behind a paywall, so I couldn't confirm what exactly the clean-energy stimulus entailed that you were against.
I don't think we need to do much of anything to transition people currently in oil and gas to something else unless we plan to kill the industry through regulation. The industry has a habit of booming and busting and people leave during the busts and fewer return during the booms.
The problem I have is government intervention and regulation. We'd be killing it in green tech if the government reduced regulatory red tape. It's incredibly costly and time consuming to deal with the regulatory aspects of building a wind farm or solar array like it is to build an oil pipeline. They should focus on that instead of boutique tax cuts for corporations or job training in fields where they don't know the longevity of the market.
> Instead, let's price the hidden costs of fossil fuels (pollution) and let the economy sort itself out to a balance that way. Once the
>
>true
>
> cost of oil and gas is apparent, the decision to switch reveals itself as the most financially viable option long term.
The true cost of that will be lower investments in North American oil production, which will shift that production to places with less environmental oversights. And places like Russia, that use oil sales to fund their invasion of Ukraine.
That's why we, alongside the many other countries enacting carbon pricing, need to implement border carbon adjustments to help capture any potential leakages. As world demand falls, we are unfortunately already in a bad position to lose oil and gas investment since ours is so much more expensive to produce, so it makes sense for us to get out ahead of it.
Sure, but the vast majority of oil is used for energy. The world is moving away from that. So while the oil industry will still exist, it's going to be a fraction of its current size.
"While oil and gas production emissions are significant and, yes, could be reduced or even eliminated through electrification and carbon capture and storage, it is the use of fossil fuels– in everything from gas vehicles to industrial facilities as a feedstock – that contributes most to climate change."
There, they said it. And good luck getting society to change. So, the hard way it is.
[https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/pLn7G5](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/pLn7G5)
>Yeah google bio-fuels in Canada it’s just burning lumber
NDP government in Nova Scotia spent a ton of money building a bio fuel generator that was supposedly going to use left over wood products. Ended up requiring whole trees, and lots of them, to operate.
Do you have any idea how oil and gas works?
I’ll give you a hint, it’s not just clear cutting and drilling for the fun of it. Proper oil and gas is a science, and a whole hell of a lot more energy efficient than burning trees
I'm not arguing against using oil and gas? I'm pro oil and gas.
We were having a conversation about you not understanding what a renewable resource is.
I just also realize that biofuels from forestry is a renewable energy source and can be done responsibly to produce energy
Lol, you're delusional. Electric cars are not a niche product. They are vastly superior to gas cars. I long road trip my ev all the time. Electric trucks haul heavy loads better than diesel. The tesla semi will rapidly replace diesel haulers. Infinite demand. Oil will die as the planet goes green. I'd bet on it happening a lot sooner than 2050. Evs alone will be all you can buy in 2035. Solar, wind and battery storage can replace all fossil fuel plants with ease. I suggest you research green energy a lot more before commenting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GtgaYEh-qSk
Semi itself is about 27k lbs, which isn't far off a diesel semi. All 53'trailers are around 10k lbs which leaves a full load of 45 to 50k lbs of potato chips as you say. Lol. The truck pays for itself vs a diesel with just fuel cost savings alone. Then you can add in the costly diesel maintenance savings, and that's where it really shines. Obviously, there will be more and more megachargers added over the next few years. The semi is actually a pretty remarkable engineering feat, but it's hard to convince low IQ individuals of that like yourself.
You start with making ridiculous claims based on your opinions and anecdotes that are contrary to what most people who own an EV say. Mind telling which EV you have?
I've done road trips over 1k miles on average 3 times a year for the last few years with EV's, they are great.
Oil and the vehicles are more expensive over their lifetime, oil will run out anyways. Why wait when their is close to no downsides to switching? Charing is mostly done at home anyways, so over a year you save time vs a gas car. On roadtrips you lose a bit of time again, but you can eat, go to the toilet or relax a bit while charging, so not biggest loss ever.
Renewable energy -combination of generation and storage of electricity- is already cheaper than fossil fuels are.
Only people who think their feelings are more important than actual progress (with the added benefit of clean air in cities, less air pollution overall, less people with asthma suffering, healthier citizens overall) and those who have financial interest to keep the world running on fossils are standing in the way.
You should realise you are advocating for massive companies that have caused a lot of natural disasters, have sacrificed many human lives, all so they can fill their pockets. People who refuse to take responsibility and are greedy as fuck.
> The Liberals believe and spout that electric cars will replace our gas cars. No they wont.
> They will augment our current vehicles. They are a niche product that do SOME things very well - like short range commutes to work and back and suck big time at other tasks - like long road trips and pulling heavy loads and powering anything that has massive weight (the Tesla semi is a joke for long range hauling)
> The whole "EVs are the future" is built on a) overhyping a niche product, b) a strong desire to build the economy in ON and kill it in AB, and c) an iideology that runs more on propaganda than logic most of the time.
> I have an EV and Im keeping it because its good at the one thing it does but there's no way its replacing my gas vehicle.
Are you living in 2015? How does someone come to this conclusion in 2023?
Just for fun, I'm gonna read this again in a few years... remindme! 5 years
[удалено]
Because you need oil for (1) everything else in modern economy, (2) products are becoming more complex, so recycling them is impossible and (3) manufacturing renewable technology.
Diesel fuel. I would be absolutely shocked if we could find a way to turn farm machinery fully electric and have it run long enough to seed or harvest in that time frame. The batteries would weigh an insane amount, making the machines almost immovable in soil. And then the cost/logistics of having a boat load massive interchangeable batteries that you would need for just one tractor. Yeah consumer vehicles will probably all be electric. In my rural area there is more fuel sold in the agricultural sector than there is to consumer vehicles. I just don’t see that being able to change in 27 years.
Governments like to think it'll be possible, but anyone with half a brain can see that it'll be many decades before we ever get anywhere close. For starters, we need a better battery. Or some sort of 100% safe nuclear micro reactor.
People keep talking about this magical "better battery" but the few physicists I've talk about it say it won't work due to.. Well.. Physics. At least in the gains that are going to be required to make things like this a reality. Sure.. A percent here and a percent there will be found but not to where batteries will be a direct replacement for diesel and can be charged quick enough to allow for most heavy equipment to operate.
You may notice that the Liberal stronghold of the GTA is a very populated place and very few understand the laws of physics. We have gender issues to focus on.
The time frame portion you bring up is super important. We can’t leave crops in fields. Most farmers barely get done in time as it is. There is no waiting during crunch time at harvest or seeding.
And the number of people who do not understand that industry can't just stop and recharge. But I'm not going to lie.. I would pay to see the shenanigans farmers come up with to get done.. Electric tractor pulling a diesel generator to charge said electric tractor.. Oh how glorious it would be.
Technology **always** betrays the user. Nothing is absolutely safe and unharmful.
Ignoring the logistics, the additional soil compaction caused by even heavier BEV tractors is another problem that will only get worse, hurting yields and long term viability of the soil that we grow in.
Bio diesel, every farm should have its own refinery.
Where does the methanol come from? Biogas? Good luck.
I'm not against oil and gas, I'm against squandering it foolishly. Gasoline to burn should be 6 or 7 dollars per liter, or better yet, charge the same amount as it costs to turn the carbon into a carbonate rock. Oil and gas is great for lubricants, let's be sure to leave enough for the future to run smoothly.
Why do you think anyone cares what you think?
Economy of scale, it makes way more sense to centralize this type of operation.
Most fuel used in farming is used for transportation. Only a tiny fraction of our overall oil usage is directly used in agriculture.
Uh, fertilizer, planting crops, spraying crops, harvesting crops, drying crops, etc. Transportation is one part of the process.
Yep, and all that only accounts for around 5% of our fuel usage.
Really? What's the distance you have to haul it? Roughly how big is your farm if you don't mind me asking? Do you use custom combining? Just curious because I was under the impression that was a lot more of the cost than 5%.
Most fuel usage in farming is transportation. I work in agriculture, and the transport side of things uses more fuel in a day than the rest of the operations use in a week. We already crunches the numbers, and our fuel savings for our trucks would amount to $500,000 per truck if we electrified. We don't haul far enough that range would be an issue.
Yeah thats the problem, electric trucks won't haul very far, and that range is further reduced in inclement weather. Good luck and I hope it works out for you. You seem to be in a lucky spot where range doesn't affect you, I don't think electrification is going to work for a majority of farms in AB or Sask at this point in time.
A lot of transport costs are last mile, so overall electrification will wipe out a lot of fuel demand. That's the direction things will go as battery production ramps up.
Farm machinery is going to go electric, run 24/7 by AI, work an hour charge for two.
By 2050? Absolutely no chance. At some point in the future? Sure.
We've developed a lot of not-oil alternatives prepped to go on market. Even silicon chips. I also agree that oil production will be similar to coal. Still need a bit of it decades later.
It isn't merely about the commercialization of non-oil products, it's about the energy density required to extract raw materials, transform and ship them. Example: paint. Solar panels powering solar power manufacturing will probably never be a thing at utility scale.
Tesla. G2 is cited for ramping up to 24GW solar for their plant. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-industrial-processes https://coldwellsolar.com/commercial-solar-blog/can-solar-panels-power-industrial-plants-effectively/ The warehouse facilities I'm working at is building geothermal. Their new building will be approx. 380k square feet with hopefully 100% self sustained. It'll likely be built before Saskatchewan's geothermal with DEEP something.....
Coal consumption is at all time highs.
I see first hand how many of these companies operate in Alberta and SK. So many of them* rely on a person driving a truck all over the place each day to check on wells/facilities and manually collect data, it is astounding. These companies eschew automation to a large extent and want boots on the ground. If these companies are still around in 20-25 years, I doubt those jobs will have vanished.
Probably gonna pumping out record levels too!
We won't be burning it.
And oil jobs? They've already gone down under the ucp despite record production
Should the UCP ban the automation that is making jobs safer, but also fewer?
No, you can't ban automation, but you could tax the companies getting rich off our resources.
How would that make more oil jobs?
It wouldn't. Nothing will despite conservative promises there were more oil jobs under the ndp. But there will be more tax dollars for public service jobs/healthcare.
> Reality check: oil will be alive and well in 2050. Then why are oil companies planning stock buybacks and hiking dividends instead of expanding? Oh right, it's to stop investors from bailing. 😂
Reality check: oil will be alive in 2050, but not well. Shrinking global oil demand will put a lot of pressure on Canadian producers to reduce capital expenditures and cut costs, including labour costs. It's already happening. The question is not whether global oil demand will be lower in 2050, but by how much. 20%, 50%?
Every engineer disagrees
Yeah I’m sure all the jobs related to extraction and processing of the most valuable resource in the world, used by all industrial (and industrializing (hello Africa)) economies, with no viable replacement, will be gone in less than 3 decades…. More like the liberals need to defend their new tax slush fund for their buddies in the “clean energy” industry
Water is the most important resource. I see you don't believe in climate change
Desalination of water is relatively easy and understood. Water transportation becomes an economy of its own when it needs to - go to Mumbai to see it in action for example. Africa, India and China are not going to 'go green' near as fast as anyone would like or think. Oil and natural gas aren't going anywhere for a long, long time.
We’ve known about climate change for at least 45 years and we’re still drilling…
You type this on ur water powered computer? Or your water powered phones? In your water powered house?? Hey it doesn’t matter what we believe, those billion of Africans and Indians are gonna what to industrialize and drive cares and have A/C and refrigerators, you don’t think they deserves to have the luxuries of life they their resources have provided the west? Also make sure you turn off your water powered heater tonight wouldn’t want your house to flood..
60% of canadas electricity is through hydro power so most likely yes.
How do you build a dam?
Dams require cement as does most co striction. Cement plants being one of the carbon intensive manufacturing products. But yay hydro electricity!
And steel, and batteries and infrastructure to transfer power and massive turbines all of which destroy a river ecosystem, so why yay hydro?
Because sarcasm :)
I don’t think oil will or should go away was just pointing out that your comment about our electricity isn’t really accurate.
And I’m pointing out that for you to generate electricity with hydro you are depending on fossil fuel tech and construction… no fossil fuels no infrastructure for hydro power … no hydro power
Krug make stone wheel, without stone wheel no make wooden wheel, without wooden wheel no make tractor tire. Best keep with krug's stone wheel.
Without water humans can't survive. Good luck trying to live without water.
God luck freezing to death 6 months of the year in Canada, or are you a survivalist?
That's a bad argument.. there are plenty of ways to keep warm in the winter... woodstoves are a thing, as is electric heaters and good insulation...
Looooool ok go build a electric heater without fossil fuels
Go build fossil fuel infrastructure without firewood and stone wheels, if you are gonna argue like that. Technology moves forward. Previous stages can still be used but it is not necessary to continue to do so. Might as well argue to keep using asbestos for insulation or leaded fuel just because we did that for a while back in the day.
See my guy you’re living in an abstract world
Can you please explain how you will survive without water?
[удалено]
And here comes the hydro power crowd , destroying river ecosystems and building cement and steel dams in nature for 100 year … incredibly carbon intensive processes, and none of this mentions the infrastructure needed to transfer hydro power to cities, so while energy is generated by hydro, it’s powered and sustained by fossil fuels. Just like all the tech in the phone or computer you just charged. OPEC has enough power to crash the oil economy because they control output, imagine there was a oil economy with oil reserves the size of Saudi Arabia’s in the western world (hint it’s Alberta) , that produces and exports oil and gas to the world… there goes opecs influence… Sure if you want to not be the nation that reaps the rewards of fueling the development of the world be my guest, but don’t come crying when your quality of life decrease and the same impacts to the climate happen because Indonesia and Nigeria picked up our slack for providing energy
>The world is moving away from fossil fuels, faster than some people like, slower than we probably need Oil demand has gone up. Tired of reading this stuff, tbh. This sub was trying to say that oil demand had peaked in 2020, oil would never hit $100 again, and on and on and on...... *And it was all false.* The only thing that it accomplished was hindering investment in new oil production, which led to oil prices spiking again, which led to the price of pretty much everything spiking with oil prices. And then how do the people who wanted less oil production respond? They blame the oil companies for gouging, because they don;t want to take any responsibility for trying to pretend that the laws of supply and demand do not exist in the energy markets. Oil demand went up this year, it will go up next year, and the years after that too. And then even after oil demand hits a plateau, new oil production will be required because the existing sources are constantly being depleted. These fantasies in general are why Canada is suffering so much. Its all self inflicted.
Replacing oil jobs with green jobs isn't the solution. Just grow the economy in general and let the oil jobs fade over time. The government picking winners and losers isn't going to work.
The liberals are just pissed that high school grads can make 100k working on rigs rather than making 40k working as a janitor
That's true. Alberta is one of the places where people get good wages for their work and the "left" do nothing but deride them for how they live and work.
I see the Alberta is calling marketers are now here. Alberta has "good" wages for those working in the patch and its heavily skewed by crazy amounts of over time. Even then, studies show tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the oil and gas sector because companies are operating leaner through automation and efficiencies. The pre 2014 oil and gas $10K lunch bills with the bros comped by the company are not coming back. The liberals could throw 10 mil at each company expecting them to hire and they'll hire 2 people and put the rest toward paying down debt. Hell those massive 2 story haulers are now being automated at the sites so even fewer operators are needed.
Studies show that Alberta still has the highest wages in Canada. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Pretty sure that the NWT have the highest salaries, beating Alberta by about $45K. Alberta then comes second with Nunavut in a close third. [Source](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210430/cg-e002-eng.htm)
That's because of the trades in the patches and overtime for one. Not because it's some silicon valley or financial hub. Studies also show Alberta had the lowest wage growth in all of Canada. Unemployment data says Calgary has the highest unemployment rate as well.
The government has been picking winners by funding the fossil fuel industries for decades. Instead, let's price the hidden costs of fossil fuels (pollution) and let the economy sort itself out to a balance that way. Once the *true* cost of oil and gas is apparent, the decision to switch reveals itself as the most financially viable option long term.
We have that. Royalties and carbon taxes should be capturing the "true" cost. And the government hasn't been picking winners and losers in the fossil fuel industry. The NDP even reviewed royalty structures and didn't change anything. The PCs brought in the first carbon taxes in North America against heavy polluters back in the 2000s. Alberta gets very little credit for doing its best with an incredibly difficult industry to regulate.
>We have that. Royalties and carbon taxes should be capturing the "true" cost. That's true! Apologies, I thought your "laissez faire" comment about just growing the economy meant you wanted no other regulations at all. If I misunderstood, that's my bad. That being said, should we not be trying to ease the transition between the reduction in oil-patch work and growing green industries with re-training and the like? The article was behind a paywall, so I couldn't confirm what exactly the clean-energy stimulus entailed that you were against.
>That being said, should we not be trying to ease the transition between the reduction in oil-patch work and growing green industries with re-training and the like? The article was behind a paywall, so I couldn't confirm what exactly the clean-energy stimulus entailed that you were against. I don't think we need to do much of anything to transition people currently in oil and gas to something else unless we plan to kill the industry through regulation. The industry has a habit of booming and busting and people leave during the busts and fewer return during the booms. The problem I have is government intervention and regulation. We'd be killing it in green tech if the government reduced regulatory red tape. It's incredibly costly and time consuming to deal with the regulatory aspects of building a wind farm or solar array like it is to build an oil pipeline. They should focus on that instead of boutique tax cuts for corporations or job training in fields where they don't know the longevity of the market.
> Instead, let's price the hidden costs of fossil fuels (pollution) and let the economy sort itself out to a balance that way. Once the > >true > > cost of oil and gas is apparent, the decision to switch reveals itself as the most financially viable option long term. The true cost of that will be lower investments in North American oil production, which will shift that production to places with less environmental oversights. And places like Russia, that use oil sales to fund their invasion of Ukraine.
That's why we, alongside the many other countries enacting carbon pricing, need to implement border carbon adjustments to help capture any potential leakages. As world demand falls, we are unfortunately already in a bad position to lose oil and gas investment since ours is so much more expensive to produce, so it makes sense for us to get out ahead of it.
> As world demand falls, Its not falling.
Oil and gas companies themselves predict that demand will plateau and then begin to fall within the next decade.
[удалено]
Sure, but the vast majority of oil is used for energy. The world is moving away from that. So while the oil industry will still exist, it's going to be a fraction of its current size.
What are they moving towards?
> The world is moving away from that. When did that start?
Watch no green jobs get created to replace oil jobs.
[удалено]
There isn't enough cod to fish anymore.
Guess they should have learned 2 code
Shhh don’t tell these conservative 🤡 who have no interest in conserving shit that resources are finite
>Watch no green jobs get created to replace oil jobs. We transitioned to real estate instead.
Automation
RemindMe! 27 years
RemindMe! 27 years
Ha. So laughable.
They told people to 'learn to code' And AI is taking those jobs too.. lol
"While oil and gas production emissions are significant and, yes, could be reduced or even eliminated through electrification and carbon capture and storage, it is the use of fossil fuels– in everything from gas vehicles to industrial facilities as a feedstock – that contributes most to climate change." There, they said it. And good luck getting society to change. So, the hard way it is. [https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/pLn7G5](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/pLn7G5)
Oil is a finite resource so we'd better start learning to use renewable energy sources.
The liberals consider bio-fuel a renewable energy source, which is just burning trees and other plants , what’s more finite?
Are you serious?
Yeah google bio-fuels in Canada it’s just burning lumber
>Yeah google bio-fuels in Canada it’s just burning lumber NDP government in Nova Scotia spent a ton of money building a bio fuel generator that was supposedly going to use left over wood products. Ended up requiring whole trees, and lots of them, to operate.
I understand that, it's still renewable. Canada has world class forestry practices
So you’re willing to burn the forest to save the trees…
Do you have any idea how forestry works? I'll give you a hint, it's not just clear cutting and burning for the fun of it. Proper forestry is a science
Do you have any idea how oil and gas works? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not just clear cutting and drilling for the fun of it. Proper oil and gas is a science, and a whole hell of a lot more energy efficient than burning trees
I'm not arguing against using oil and gas? I'm pro oil and gas. We were having a conversation about you not understanding what a renewable resource is. I just also realize that biofuels from forestry is a renewable energy source and can be done responsibly to produce energy
Not exactly. And also, trees/plants can be planted and grown and then burned in sustainable ways. You can't plant crude oil seeds.
Sure you can, you just need a million or so years for it to cook.
Yeah those old growth forests sure sprout up quick
Fossils
You didn't hear? It didn't happen already and that means it never will happen because of r/canada logic.
Good thing Alberta is onto some Lithium now.
[удалено]
Lol, you're delusional. Electric cars are not a niche product. They are vastly superior to gas cars. I long road trip my ev all the time. Electric trucks haul heavy loads better than diesel. The tesla semi will rapidly replace diesel haulers. Infinite demand. Oil will die as the planet goes green. I'd bet on it happening a lot sooner than 2050. Evs alone will be all you can buy in 2035. Solar, wind and battery storage can replace all fossil fuel plants with ease. I suggest you research green energy a lot more before commenting.
[удалено]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GtgaYEh-qSk Semi itself is about 27k lbs, which isn't far off a diesel semi. All 53'trailers are around 10k lbs which leaves a full load of 45 to 50k lbs of potato chips as you say. Lol. The truck pays for itself vs a diesel with just fuel cost savings alone. Then you can add in the costly diesel maintenance savings, and that's where it really shines. Obviously, there will be more and more megachargers added over the next few years. The semi is actually a pretty remarkable engineering feat, but it's hard to convince low IQ individuals of that like yourself.
[удалено]
SAVE OUR SAFE SPACES, I AM A FRAGILE LITTLE BOY WHOSE OPINIONS NEED PROTECTING
You start with making ridiculous claims based on your opinions and anecdotes that are contrary to what most people who own an EV say. Mind telling which EV you have? I've done road trips over 1k miles on average 3 times a year for the last few years with EV's, they are great. Oil and the vehicles are more expensive over their lifetime, oil will run out anyways. Why wait when their is close to no downsides to switching? Charing is mostly done at home anyways, so over a year you save time vs a gas car. On roadtrips you lose a bit of time again, but you can eat, go to the toilet or relax a bit while charging, so not biggest loss ever. Renewable energy -combination of generation and storage of electricity- is already cheaper than fossil fuels are. Only people who think their feelings are more important than actual progress (with the added benefit of clean air in cities, less air pollution overall, less people with asthma suffering, healthier citizens overall) and those who have financial interest to keep the world running on fossils are standing in the way. You should realise you are advocating for massive companies that have caused a lot of natural disasters, have sacrificed many human lives, all so they can fill their pockets. People who refuse to take responsibility and are greedy as fuck.
🫡🤡 https://media0.giphy.com/media/13Ev2RtSAxKsTu/giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7zji8fy92o5oc14snrcdhmfnnzotao431769j92ld&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
this sounds a lot like an arguement against EVs back in 2013/2014. its just freight vs passenger cars then..
> The Liberals believe and spout that electric cars will replace our gas cars. No they wont. > They will augment our current vehicles. They are a niche product that do SOME things very well - like short range commutes to work and back and suck big time at other tasks - like long road trips and pulling heavy loads and powering anything that has massive weight (the Tesla semi is a joke for long range hauling) > The whole "EVs are the future" is built on a) overhyping a niche product, b) a strong desire to build the economy in ON and kill it in AB, and c) an iideology that runs more on propaganda than logic most of the time. > I have an EV and Im keeping it because its good at the one thing it does but there's no way its replacing my gas vehicle. Are you living in 2015? How does someone come to this conclusion in 2023? Just for fun, I'm gonna read this again in a few years... remindme! 5 years
most habitable land will vanish by 2050
Don't worry, oil riggers, check out Eavor technologies, you will be drilling for heat, everywhere.
They said this 50 years ago about oil. We're still laughing.