Rex Murphy on Govt Policy toward Bombardier and Jet Fuel

[cgzro]

And let's not forget the idea of using solar power hydrogen generators in your yard. No addition to existing power infrastructure on the utility side.

We can check this assertion with math to get a feel for the ease or difficulty without needing any he said/she said. Let's try a back of the envelope calculation. I'm doing this quickly and could be wrong so by all means correct any math. I'm not trying to make a point, simply checking an assertion for reasonableness.

A full tank is about 500kwh or 500,000wh. (55 gallons from Photofly above).

A good solar panel generates about 150w/sq meter in direct sunlight (plug in your preferred number if you don't like this).

Therefore we need 3333 hrs/sq meter of solar panel to fill the tank with hydrogen - assuming we don't have to compress it or don't loose anything in the conversion.

Lets say we need to fill it once a week (about my average), so that means we have say 8hrs good sunlight /day x 7 days or 56hrs of strong sunlight to work with. Dividing our 3333hrs/sq meter by 56 hrs we find that we need 60 square meters of solar panels to electrolyse enough hydrogen to generate 500kwh equivalent at 100% conversion and without compression to liquid form in one week.

Thats about 24' x 24' of solar panels per car.. ok .. so not impossible if you have the space which most suburban homes likely would on the roof or the backyard. Of course not possible in a city where most people live.

Not sure about the losses to compression which is continuous energy input or the conversion losses but somebody could play with that to get a better idea and of course the assumption of 8 hrs of strong sunlight a day in Canada much of the year is pretty unrealistic but you can adjust the numbers however you want to at least discuss the reality of any given idea.

[Mach1]

I shall ask you a simple question once again: Where is the clean oil?

With respect to your angst against a "company" asking for a bail-out versus a "province", what a heaping pile of bovine waste. Do you think a billion dollars will solve the problems in Alberta? Give your head a shake. And don't fool yourself, any Alberta bail-out will be going to OIL COMPANIES....not the province of Alberta. Oil companies who have already enjoyed decades of subsidizes to develop drilling and processing techniques, and exploration. Please don't try to tell me that Alberta hasn't relied on oil companies getting subsidies and handouts.

To make sure I understand you correctly, I am going paraphrase what I am reading here. You are against our elected government giving money directly to the people in need (not the provincial government, as you imply) but, you are for the government giving money to a privately owned corporation?

Same thing happened south of the 49th when the banks screwed up the economy. The elected government gave money to the corporations... a lot of money... something along the lines (going from memory alone) of they could have given $50,000 to every man woman and child in the US... but instead they gave it to companies that then handed out bonuses, repossessed houses and generally did nothing to reignite the economy. Hmmmm....

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on that stance. I like living in a democracy where I elect a government to represent me (I know, but what can I say, I'm an idealist) rather than a corpocracy (*TM) where governments represent corporations... because, why bother having a government if the companies run it all anyway? Corporations should be allowed to rise and fall all on their own. People, should help people. Investing in people, not companies advances the world.

Oh, and another thing, you misread me, I never said Alberta should be bailed out, in fact I said the opposite. We have survived these before and we will again with no help from the likes of you. What I did say was that it is a hell of a slap in the face when being told "NO MONEY FOR YOU" and along comes a corporation named Bombardier and the chequebook comes out of the desk. That's insulting and if you can't see or understand that I am disappointed in your lack of human compassion for anyone but yourself.

As for more taxes being the answer to the environment, I think I am going to take a nice long walk in the snow (if I can find any, it's a nice day out) and ponder the absolute efficiency of governments at spending my money... and then I'm going to laugh, and laugh and laugh... maybe cry a little too... all at the absurdity of that belief.

And finally, cgzro: Stop confusing them with things like math and facts. It's just not a fair fight...especially when ideology and dogma are so ingrained that it becomes a religion.

[privateer]

Oil as a primary source of fuel are numbered.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... drogen-car

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... st-project

http://fortune.com/2016/03/27/tesla-mod ... t-we-know/

[photofly]

The remaining lifetime of the sun measured in days is also numbered. but it's a big number. Don't hold your breath.

[privateer]

I have showed it before I will show it again. Oil will be here for awhile yet but the future is renewables. The jobs are renewables. Canada can either get on or get left behind.

https://vimeo.com/152195669

[Mostly Harmless]

Just curious here but... what does giving a billion tax payers dollars to Bombardier to develop a jet that runs on jet fuel/oil have to do with moving towards alternative energy?

[cgzro]

The remaining lifetime of the sun measured in days is also numbered. but it's a big number. Don't hold your breath.

A case in point - California's in-state electricity generating capacity has remained flat for 14 or so years and is mostly fossil fuelled (Natural gas). So in the case of California (based on trends over the last 14 years) it will take them an infinite amount of time to replace fossil fuels the use of which have been steadily increasing over those 14 years. In order for it to be a finite time, the electricity generating capacity must be increasing faster than the fossil fuel use is increasing and from that you could predict when one could replace the other. Like everywhere they would need to add an additional 2+ x their generating capacity to get off fossil fuels (and of course also replace that 63% of their electrical generating capacity too. So they pretty much need to build 3 completely new sources of capacity equivalent to their current capacity without using fossil fuels as a source.

I'm surprised by this because I would have thought California of all places would be ramping up their generating capacity and cutting back on fossil fuels not the other way around.

[photofly]

Just curious here but... what does giving a billion tax payers dollars to Bombardier to develop a jet that runs on jet fuel/oil have to do with moving towards alternative energy?

I think it's because of how Alberta's tragic insistence on trying to earn money from extracting oil prevents it from receiving any of the help that Bombardier gets for building things that burn that same oil.

Or something like that.

[Rockie]

A little ironic that you would use California as an example cgzro. They're going to run out of water long before they run out of fossil fuel, in large part because of that fossil fuel.

[cgzro]

Actually I picked California because of the previous post about Hydrogen cars there which I found very interesting. 60,000 and 350mile range and non liquid Hydrogen. So I was surprised that they seem not to be planning for the sharp increase in electricity demand that will result if the cars take off. Certainly building more hydro to charge cars or generate hydrogen would also add to the drought problems so that only leaves nuclear as an option for them for both power and desalination.

[Mostly Harmless]

I think it's because of how Alberta's tragic insistence on trying to earn money from extracting oil prevents it from receiving any of the help that Bombardier gets for building things that burn that same oil.

Or something like that.

Ah... I guess that makes perfect sense if you don't think about it. Thanks for the response.

[baileyrory]

It's all fun and games while fuel prices are low. People's mindset's change a bit when prices go back up to normal.

[CID]

The oil lobby is strong in this forum.....

[Mach1]

The oil lobby is strong in this forum.....

No. If you read in here, most people are all for the development and use of alternative fuels, myself included. However, a lot of us are realists in that it is going to take time and that there are some serious limitations to the current technologies that will have to be overcome or new technologies invented. Oil didn't just jump into the position it is in today, it took over a 100 years for things to be the way they are. It may well take another 100 to change them into something else.

What is strong here is a general consensus that it doesn't make sense to punish the industry making the product and reward the end user of the product at the exact same time. That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Also a general consensus that it is silly to think we can just shut down all oil production today and still have the same lifestyle we currently enjoy. That's naive.

[Rockie]

However, a lot of us are realists in that it is going to take time and that there are some serious limitations to the current technologies that will have to be overcome or new technologies invented.

Everybody is a realist in that regard. The multifaceted point people are trying to make is that a concerted effort needs to be undertaken with the weight of industry and government both pulling in the same direction. Waiting is not an option given how close we are to the tipping point in world temperature. There is also a huge financial windfall to be gained by being ahead of this push. An oil based economy was extremely good for the world and there's no reason to think the next economy won't be as good or better.

What is strong here is a general consensus that it doesn't make sense to punish the industry making the product and reward the end user of the product at the exact same time. That's hypocrisy at it's finest.

No one wants the oil industry punished and no one has suggested anything like it. They and follow on industries have received many billions in direct and indirect subsidies each and every year according to the IMF, who is not prone to exaggeration. What's hypocritical is pointing the finger at another industry for getting a tiny fraction of what the oil industry has received over the years. And as far as that's concerned the fact that aircraft happen to use jet fuel has got absolutely nothing to do with it and is a pointless connection. Everything in this world uses oil or depends on oil to some extend.

Also a general consensus that it is silly to think we can just shut down all oil production today and still have the same lifestyle we currently enjoy. That's naive.

It's more than naïve, it would be lunacy and everybody knows it.

[2R]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... e22308d155

Sorry chaps, bio diesel engine available in Japan and some 350 bhp engines available, but no Flux capacitor equiped versions yet .

[Shady McSly]

Well I just outfitted my car with an infinite improbability drive and it runs like a top....threw out my Petro-Points card.

[Mach1]

The multifaceted point people are trying to make is that a concerted effort needs to be undertaken with the weight of industry and government both pulling in the same direction. Waiting is not an option given how close we are to the tipping point in world temperature. There is also a huge financial windfall to be gained by being ahead of this push. An oil based economy was extremely good for the world and there's no reason to think the next economy won't be as good or better.

There are NO multifaceted points being made here by the alternative energy side.
How are you going to pay for this industry/government push when the overwhelming sentiment is to shut off the flow of oil out of Canada (a great economic boon for the US and other exporting nations to take ourselves out of the game) when we could be using that tax and royalty income to do what you are advocating?

No one wants the oil industry punished and no one has suggested anything like it. They and follow on industries have received many billions in direct and indirect subsidies each and every year according to the IMF, who is not prone to exaggeration. What's hypocritical is pointing the finger at another industry for getting a tiny fraction of what the oil industry has received over the years. And as far as that's concerned the fact that aircraft happen to use jet fuel has got absolutely nothing to do with it and is a pointless connection. Everything in this world uses oil or depends on oil to some extend.

Contrary to what you have written here, go back and look at some of the posts written by the alternative energy group. They have said exactly that they want oil shut down and shut down now and they are enjoying a HUGE amount of Schadenfreude over the fact that people have lost some very high paying jobs... high paying jobs that pay a lot of taxes (just emphasising a point about government revenue generation). By the way, it's really that hypocritical Schadenfreude that bothers me more than anything else here. Well, almost anything else.

You keep saying there are subsidies. I would like to know what they are. Please show me when, and how much the Canadian government is subsidizing the oil industry? Not the world, because that's not what we're talking about, just Canada.

It is absolutely the point Rex Murphy was making and the title of this whole discussion, and it is absolutely cogent to the entire discussion that many here have taken joy in the fall of oil prices and the losses of jobs here, have stated that we need to be punished and it's our comeuppance, while simultaneously promoting a handout to another industry all because they have a personal attachment to the outcome of that company. Furthermore, one billion of my dollars going to one single company is NOT pointless. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I am against any company receiving a government handout. I don't care what industry it is. I don't care who it is. There is no such thing as too big to fail. If you are supporting handouts to corporations, nothing you ever say will convince me to think like you do.

[Mach1]

I haven't even gone into the fact that the oil being imported into central Canada from the Middle East is paying for a lot of civil wars. At least if we agree that we can't shut the taps off today and it's going to take a while to develop into an alternative energy economy, we should be using home grown oil and refining it here rather than importing oil from a politically unstable part of the world where the money is often used to fund arms purchases and finance wars.

[cgzro]

No one wants the oil industry punished and no one has suggested anything like it.

There have been public calls for jail time for oil executives, so I would suggest your "no one" is wrong and there are quite a few high profile people who have made precisely such demands.

They and follow on industries have received many billions in direct and indirect subsidies each and every year according to the IMF, who is not prone to exaggeration. What's hypocritical is pointing the finger at another industry for getting a tiny fraction of what the oil industry has received over the years

What matters is that the money given to stimulate an industry is less than the tax you get back later. I.e. is the flow of money positive or negative. Oil research/exploration etc. subsidies have come back as net positive to the economy and tax coffers of the government a zillion fold. As a result, me as a tax payer sees a net positive because the subsidies end up REDUCING my tax burden not increasing it. On the flip side we have seen numerous billion dollar boon doggles, bankruptcies etc. which INCREASE my tax burden. So I see no hypocrisy in objecting to things that increase and encouraging things that decrease my tax burden.

[Rockie]

There are NO multifaceted points being made here by the alternative energy side. How are you going to pay for this industry/government push when the overwhelming sentiment is to shut off the flow of oil out of Canada (a great economic boon for the US and other exporting nations to take ourselves out of the game) when we could be using that tax and royalty income to do what you are advocating?

We're talking about a worldwide effort, not limited to Alberta, so who is going to pay for it? People will of course...the ancestors of the people who paid for the oil based economy who themselves benefitted greatly. Just like we will by converting today's economy. It's an investment, and one that's long overdue.

As far as Canada is concerned there is plenty of oil being produced outside of the oil sands in Alberta. However the cost to extract oil from there is much more than the world is now willing to pay, but it won't always be that way and Alberta will once again be flush with oil cash. Maybe next time they'll be much smarter about what they do with that cash. In the meantime the oil sands could do much to help themselves WRT to world opinion by investing in technology to clean up their act given that the federal government has refused thus far to enact regulation requiring them to do so. Birds singing in lush green commercials produced by CAPP notwithstanding, they've done nothing.

Contrary to what you have written here, go back and look at some of the posts written by the alternative energy group. They have said exactly that they want oil shut down and shut down now and they are enjoying a HUGE amount of Schadenfreude over the fact that people have lost some very high paying jobs...

Bulls**t. Show me this "alternative energy group".

You keep saying there are subsidies. I would like to know what they are. Please show me when, and how much the Canadian government is subsidizing the oil industry? Not the world, because that's not what we're talking about, just Canada.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sur ... 70215A.htm

This report breaks it down by country and product. In 2013 the report estimates Canada provided the following direct and indirect post tax subsidies to Canadian products:

Petroleum products: $30.3 Billion USD
Coal: $4.92 Billion USD
Natural Gas: $10.82 Billion USD
Total: $46.04 Billion USD

Bear in mind these figures are mostly indirect rather than direct subsidies to the industries themselves in the form of user tax breaks on the products from all kinds of areas. Think of it as government subsidized discounts on airline tickets bought for flights on Bombardier built airplanes. Significantly it also includes money not collected from industry to repair the damage to the environment wrought by that industry. How they estimate that is for bigger brains than mine to explain but there is definitely a cost. That's something none of you who complain about the cost of shifting our energy source consider, every year the consequences and cost of doing nothing rises, and eventually we'll still have to shift energy sources. You're still paying for it, it's just hidden in subsidies and made worse by delay.

Added up all these direct and indirect subsidies reduce the cost to the industry of selling their product. Harping on Bombardier for getting public funds as if the fossil fuel industry doesn't is disingenuous in the extreme.

Note: As much as Canada subsidizes it is paltry compared to countries like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq. Their subsidies as a percentage of GDP and government revenue are absolutely huge.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I am against any company receiving a government handout. I don't care what industry it is. I don't care who it is. There is no such thing as too big to fail.

Ok then. I'll expect large amounts of bandwidth from you then railing against subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Let's see just how much you believe "there is no such thing as too big to fail".

[CID]

.....it is absolutely cogent to the entire discussion that many here have taken joy in the fall of oil prices and the losses of jobs here....

What a pile of pure bullshit!

Nobody in their right mind would take joy in any of what you suggest. Unfortunately, many on the side of big oil are taking comments about the industry as attacks and jealousy. That’s just not the case. The facts speak for themselves however that the oil industry in this country has not only mismanaged their money, in Alberta they gambled on an oil source that is the most environmentally damaging (dirty) and most expensive to mine and refine. So expensive in fact that they place themselves at the mercy of global oil prices to make it profitable….or not!

And where is all the wealth that that spewed out of the ground? Nobody seems to know. People who were making 3 or 4 times the national average wages are suddenly broke, the rainy day Heritage fund is broke and the environmental clean-up fund is almost non-existent.

Where is the “joy” in that? Suggesting an alternative focus for the energy industry doesn’t mean taking the jobs away from oil workers to somehow punish them. It’s meant to provide diversification in the industry so we can continue to employ people.

Having said all that, Canadians are a little gun shy now gambling on an energy resource in which the profitability is so “volatile” and sensitive to the whim of foreign governments. We’re also a little concerned about the various estimates of how long this finite supply of fossil fuels will continue to be available at reasonable prices. Shouldn’t we then be looking seriously at alternatives for energy?

[SheriffPatGarrett]

Climate "scientists"...Hum...really high priest of a fake religion...
"Fossil fuels"? eh? Carbon is part of this planet and petro chemicals are what the gas giant planets
are made of...What giant fossils could have made Jupiter?

More "climate change/Global warming" garbage
The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer
http://www.breitbart.com/.../climate-change-the-biggest.../
Climate change is the biggest scam in the history of the world – a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracy
against the taxpayer, every cent, penny and centime of which ends in the pockets of the wrong
kind of people, none of which goes towards a cause remotely worth funding,
all of it a complete and utter waste.

[Mach1]

Okay, last one for me as I am officially shouted down... drowned out but not changed one millimetre in the knowledge that I don't want BBD to receive a single penny of my tax money.

Rockie, I notice the target with you keeps moving whether depending on the point you want to make, world vs Alberta. Pick a target unless, you can't defend the position you have taken. I've already agreed with you that in the long run, change will happen and needs to happen, does not effect today or the next several years unless a major breakthrough is made. The only viable electrical alternative right now is Nuclear. How do you feel about that? Even the hardcore environmental founders have come to that conclusion.

You are right, there is a lot of light crude outside the sands, they face the exact same issues getting to market or being refined in Canada for in-house use. I'm not sure who the "They" are you are referring to and how they handle their money. Like it or not, the oil companies are unique in that they share the wealth generated with their employees through very high wages... unlike most other industries. Just some thoughts for you on diversification: When you are opening a business in or near an oil based boom, you have to be ready to pay your employees over $100K/year. If you can't, they will go work for someone who can pay them that kind of money... what with mortgages, kids, student loans to pay for. So, you save your money and wait for a bust in the commodities market and open your diversified businesses then... lots of highly talented and well educated people to conscript. Everything is good until, along comes the next boom and you are back to the fact you better be able to pay $100K/year or all those talented people leave again. It's not as easy as people think it is to diversify. You have your ideals, I have mine, but ideals don't pay the bills and people go where the money is.

The oilsands: you seem to think that no company puts money into R&D up there. That is incorrect.

The alternative energy group I am talking about are posters in this thread, just reread the previous pages.

Bear in mind these figures are mostly indirect rather than direct subsidies to the industries themselves in the form of user tax breaks on the products from all kinds of areas.

I am completely bearing that in mind. In fact, the worst decision made by any recent provincial government was made by the Stelmack regime when they backed down against the oil industry on increased royalties. I thought that was a horrible decision and one that is currently haunting the province. But, it is not a direct cheque written to a company, and therein lies the difference. No direct handouts.

If any oil company got a direct handout from the government, you bet your ass you would hear the howls of disapproval from me. I have integrity and when I say no bailouts for any company, I mean ANY company. Even if it's my own employer. I will move on, I will find another job and I will thrive. NO company gets a cheque from the tax payers pocket.

CID: Nice response. Just because you want something to be a certain way does not make it so. If you can't make a coherent response, then you have conceded the discussion.

And where is all the wealth that that spewed out of the ground? Nobody seems to know. People who were making 3 or 4 times the national average wages are suddenly broke, the rainy day Heritage fund is broke and the environmental clean-up fund is almost non-existent.

Some spent it... houses, cars, quads, snowmobiles, trucks, vacations... all of which benefited the rest of the Canadian economy. People often think the good times will never end. Others invested it in property and/or the market and are doing well and again, contributing to the rest of the economy. You know this isn't an isolated bubble, right? The Heritage fund is sitting at or around $14,000,000,000 right now. If that's broke, I would love to be that broke. I want you to back up that claim that there is no environmental clean-up in Alberta. I know you can't because it's not true and the fact you said that shows how little you know about the environmental laws of the federal and provincial governments.

All commodities, oil included, are very volatile at the best of times. Not an investment for the faint of heart... not one I invest in as it's too volatile for my blood... but for those who do, there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of money to be lost. I tend to repeat myself a lot in here because it seems no one reads the whole post but, I am for the development of alternative energy sources as it is a given that the time will come when oil is very rare. Does that mean we dismantle the industry that can help finance the development of those same alternatives for the sake of idealism? Even the oil companies know their days are numbered and whatever comes next, they want in on the ground floor so they can profit from that new source... never kid yourself that corporations are the ultimate survivalists.

I'm out... back to work.

[mbav8r]

Mach1 wrote;
If any oil company got a direct handout from the government, you bet your ass you would hear the howls of disapproval from me. I have integrity and when I say no bailouts for any company, I mean ANY company. Even if it's my own employer. I will move on, I will find another job and I will thrive. NO company gets a cheque from the tax payers pocket.

Just so I understand, you would be ok with Bombardier getting 2 Billion in the form of tax subsidies.
So, you don't see how, if 30 billion doesn't make it into the coffers, it's still coming out of the tax payers pocket. If the oil subsidies didn't exist, my tax burden would be lower, it's just that simple!