
What if Canada had spent $200bn on wind energy instead of oil? - a_w
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/jun/15/canada-oil-sands-pipeline-trans-mountain-what-if-invest-renewable-wind-energy
======
Camillo
> since 1999

> at the current cost

Wow great research. By the same token, Canada should cancel the next $200bn of
expenditures on wind energy and save it. By spending it in bulk in 20 years,
surely it will be able to get much more energy at a lower price. Genius.

~~~
Phanyxx
The balance between inflation and dropping turbine prices. I'm sure there are
trend lines somewhere...

------
el_don_almighty
* REQUIRES TIME-MACHINE

 __STUPIDLY GOES FORWARD IN TIME FOR 2018 TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF 2025...OR 2050

 __* CANADIAN ENERGY SEARCH TEAM OF THE FUTURE NEVER COMES BACK BECAUSE FUTURE
IS FULL OF SEX ROBOTS

~~~
pdfernhout
Yeah, a time machine -- or reading any of the publications the Rocky Mountain
Institute has been putting out since the 1970s (e.g. Brittle Power) that show,
when accounting for externalities, renewables and energy efficiency have been
cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear since the 1970s. Renewables and energy
efficiency should have won in the marketplace for decades. Why didn't they? it
is because of an tilted playing field where people don't pay the full cost
(including risk) for fossil fuels and nuclear at the gasoline pump or on their
electric bill -- but instead they pay it in higher health care costs, taxes
for the military, or government-absorbed risk like for nuclear meltdowns.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute)
"The Lovinses described the "hard energy path" as involving inefficient
liquid-fuel automotive transport, as well as giant centralized electricity-
generating facilities, often burning fossil fuels such as coal or petroleum,
or harnessing a fission reaction, greatly complicated by electricity wastage
and loss. The "soft energy path" which they wholly preferred involves
efficient use of energy, diversity of energy production methods (and matched
in scale and quality to end uses), and special reliance on "soft technologies"
(alternative technology) such as solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal.
According to the Institute, large-scale electricity production facilities had
an important place, but it was a place that they were already filling in the
middle 1970s; in general, more would not be needed. In a 1989 speech, Amory
Lovins introduced the related concept of Negawatt power, in which the creation
of a market for trading increased efficiency could supply additional
electrical energy to consumers without increasing generation capacity—such as
building more power plants."

------
snowwindwaves
Article says 912 million barrels produced since 1999 with cost of extraction
$40 per barrel for 36 billion spent on equipment, wages, etc. the average cost
of oil since 2000 is $65 per barrel so 912 million barrels grossed 58 billion.

It isn't clear who invested 200 billion and why they continued to invest since
they have a loss of 178 billion having only netted 22 billion.

~~~
mmt
> Article says 912 million barrels produced since 1999

Actually, it says:

> In 2017, the Alberta oil sands produced roughly 912m barrels.

The article doesn't actually tell us the whole history, it just cherry-picks
one year.

There's other suspicious playing with numbers going on:

> About 60% was turned into gasoline and diesel, enough to fuel 73m vehicles

So.. if 100% had been turned into fuel for those vehicles, that would
translate to.. 122m vehicles, weirdly identical to their number for electric
vehicles.

Then they're comparing a 12L/100km (19.6mpg) ICE vehicle against a Chevy Bolt
in the pricing section?

Not much to see here, sadly.

------
dade_
Then we could have recovered some of the wind from the mouths of our
politicians.

------
lupinglade
Or how about on Internet infrastructure?

------
rohitb91
Weren't too many electrical cars back then.

~~~
craftyguy
There was plenty of demand for electricity though, and electric cars are
definitely not a new technology(0)

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History)

