jeffmori7

Caught an article the other day Jeff. I dont know if you have ever travelled to Cobalt ontario, about 10 miles from Quebec. There are experiencing something of a resurgence lately due to cobalt demand. Needless to say, Canadian mine practices are eons better than those in most African locations. Nope, I wasn't aware that Cobalt city existed before Cardboard posted his link!

Thanks for the link on cobalt. It was well presented. We must admit it is a new problem , not at all at the same scale as the massive problems from exploitation of oil over more than a century. And they are looking to diversify the cobalt supply chain.

I think it is not that evident to say a precise technology is now affordable because the incentives played their role or not to accelerate its development. Defenders of the free market will say that if it is good, it would have arrived at the good price at the good time. Others will say that to kick start some technologies or to accelerate their development, government help is necessary. I think that if there are some externalities like benefit for the society as a whole, govrnement is right to give a push. Of course, some won't agree and pretend that a total free market will work. I don't! It's also hypocritical to heavily subsidize (directly and indirectly) and favor certain techs for decades (fossil fuels) and then when a real competitor is starting to emerge, to say "subsidies are bad, we shouldn't support clean energy sources and just let the market figure it out". The least we could do it remove current subsidies for fossil fuels, which would make alternatives more competitive, but without being retroactive, it's hard to talk about a free market... "A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fossil_fuel_subsidies Don't derail arguments with facts. lol, The argument over not subsidizing renewables is non starter BS. We have subsidized all fossil fuels since their inception both directly and indirectly. Directly through tax breaks, provision of roads, transmission...... The whole infrastructure of society has been built around fossil fuel use. Its a symbiosis. Indirectly through millions of deaths (coal), virtual slave labour, heath damage, and environmental damage. Everything has its externalities, there just happen to be fewer with wind and solar. When the coal and oil lobbyists whine about subsidies they seem to conveniently forget all the externalities required for their industries to operate. By getting rid of fossil fuels you could even shrink agencies like the EPA, and OSHA. I personally could care less about subsidizing renewables. We will get there one way or another anyways out of necessity, and survival of the human race. And like everyone else I am a hypocrite. I hold oil stocks, drive a gas powered car, burn natual gas, and own a gas transmission company. I also hold a larger number of shares in rrenewable energy companies than oil. But I still a hypocrite. Of course you are a hypocrit Al, as we all are, more or less. It is difficult to get rid of oil, no matter the problematic externalities that it provides, because oil has been and is still an incredible thing that has got us where we are today and that we rely so heavily on in everything that is part of our modern society. But you don't deny that we have to do the transition, and to do that we should support the renewables among other things.

John, personally I'm just interested by the tech and by the field, which I've been following for almost 20 years. I haven't seen anything that makes me want to invest in energy, clean or otherwise. Seems like a hard business to invest in. Thanks for sharing your view here, Liberty. Yes, it's from a tech angle so fascinating what's going on. Making money on it as an investor is - at least to me - another matter. Historically, it is not the technology providers that have make money with energy, but the utilities. Hence, invested in BAM or BRK is a good way to play this. But with the energetic transition happening, decentralized production increasing at a fast pace, dramatic cost reduction, etc. the whole game is changing and utilities will have to adapt their business models. Nobody knows how all of this will evolve. As an investor, betting on the technology is dangerous, maybe choosing some players that could win with most of the possible futures like some component providers in many scenarios could be wise, or to bet again on utilities, but still, you don't know which ones or when they will be disrupted. But all of this is fascinating, for sure.

I think it is not that evident to say a precise technology is now affordable because the incentives played their role or not to accelerate its development. Defenders of the free market will say that if it is good, it would have arrived at the good price at the good time. Others will say that to kick start some technologies or to accelerate their development, government help is necessary. I think that if there are some externalities like benefit for the society as a whole, govrnement is right to give a push. Of course, some won't agree and pretend that a total free market will work. I don't!

Two things against hydrogen: the overall energy efficiency: https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html But I am curious to hear more about this thing with solar panel without electrolysis, honestly haven't heard about it yet. And the overall cost of operation which should be the same for a car as gas, while EV will decrease 5-10 fold the cost of operation of a car. Still, I think there is a place for hydrogen when you have electricity surplus, it is a way to stock energy that could be more convenient than large-scale battery for some industrial applications. Let's see how it play.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals

Yup, due to an NDP governement.

An you know what guys, I'm out now. Enough time lost for all of us, it won't go anywhere, as usual. We will have to agree that we disagree, big time.

If that was the end, I don't think you'd get many complaints. But the fact of the matter is that the rest of Canada pays higher taxes to pay for excess spending in Quebec. Both Federal spending well in excess of receipts from QC, as well as direct transfers through equalization. If your choices only impacted your taxes, I wouldn't care. But as an Albertan paying higher than otherwise taxes for QC social programs while QC environmentalists block my livelihood.... And when we have to pay for the environmental disaster that you Albertans refuse even to acknowledge... And if we talk about historical equalization, you have received money before oil, and if we talk about the stupid choice you make when you have surplus, you send little 100$ check to all your citizen so they will buy rationally more F150, and when oil price plunge, you don't have anything because you are too stupid to plan that it is a cyclical commodity...come on with the Quebec bashing, I can bash Alberta a lot if you ask me too. The amount of money Alberta received in the distant past is so nominal as to be insignificant. Alberta's govt sent cheques to everyone a couple of times with surplus oil revenue from our resources. Quebec sends 100s of dollars to its citizens every year in the form of overly generous programs and subsidized hydro prices. They also use Alberta revenue. Which seems more fair to you? Not sure what you're talking about regarding the crash. Oil is pretty low right now. Alberta isn't receiving any equilization, so we seem to still be OK. On the other hand, QC is receiving over $11 billion this year, roughly $1300 for every man woman and child in the province. You're welcome. Amusing for a defender of QC equilization to be bashing Albertan spending. Those who live in glass houses... Sorry everyone for the digression :) Fair enough. But it is not my fault or your fault that the equalization is setup the way it is. And we both know that the amount wouldn't change no matter what is our level of public expanse in Quebec. Even if we wre to cut in our social programs, we would receive the funding. I am not saying it is good or bad, I am saying it is that way now. Equalization is based on the relative richness, with a somewhat strange formula. Cost of living is not included into that. Petrol is such a unique asset that is distorting it all, and making you Albertans far richer than everyone else for now. Still, you don't pay for everything just in Alberta by the way. But I don't accept the idea that hydro is subsidized, our real cost of production are infinitesimal, thus the low rates. Nothing else. Should we change the equalization, probably? But it is not easy, isn'it? The Canadien federation is a strange beast, we all know that. Quebec would probably have to adapt if the equalization changes, but overall, the whole idea is to redistribute money among Canada, and as far as I know, we are part of it. To SJ: Hey, I know we have historically benefited from oil as a society (I mean, the humanity as a whole), but there is no way this is our future. This is part of what I am telling. I am not to refuse that money, because I think we should use that money to build a better future. I like the way Norwegians deal with it. They know it won't be a panacae forever, so they plan accordingly. And I work hard here and pay taxes, to both governments, and I do not agree to many decisions, but it is the way it is. And I will continue to say to everyone, Quebecois like Albertans that we need to stop our petrol junkiness, that's it. No. You personally delivered a sermon. You have a choice. You can take the money from the oil sector which is channelled to Quebec through equalization and through per-capital financing of social transfers and you can be happy and quiet. Or you can be a hippocrit and accept the money while delivering a condescending sermon to the people who worked their asses off to generate that money. And that's the problem with the intelligensia in Quebec. They simultaneously want money from western Canada to build their "advanced" society with low cost daycare and low cost tuition AND they want to criticize and undermine the very petroleum industry that funds their "paradise". Choose one. Either reject the money that originates from the petroleum industry (send it back to Ottawa with a note that says, "Va chier s'il vous plait, nos principes sont plus importants que votre argent sale") or quietly accept the money that funds your glorious social programs. Anything else is hipocracy. Either take the money and shut-up, or reject the money and deliver the sermon about Quebec's moral superiority with respect to the environment and climate change. SJ Wow, and you say that I deliver a sermon! You are way more nuanced usually, no? But I do not agree with your binary proposition, everything is not so black and white. I will continue to say that climate change is a threat, and we should all work together to fight it. And I will continue to say that we should use the money from oil to heal us from oil and do the transition. It would be stupid to reject the money. And when I say we, I mean Canada as whole, you in Ontario, and those guys in Alberta and us in Quebec. Take the money where it is and redirect it to where we should go. And we are not funding our social programs with your money, we are funding most of our social programs with our money. You can all raise your taxes if you want to finance social programs also, as most of Canada could do if they wanted to. Honestly, even if Quebec wouldn't receive a cent from equalization, I would stand by my point that environment is above about everything else, and I would still urge Albertans to listen to science a little bit more and to listen to redneck demagog a little bit less :) Oh and we have our fair share of demagog out here also.

If that was the end, I don't think you'd get many complaints. But the fact of the matter is that the rest of Canada pays higher taxes to pay for excess spending in Quebec. Both Federal spending well in excess of receipts from QC, as well as direct transfers through equalization. If your choices only impacted your taxes, I wouldn't care. But as an Albertan paying higher than otherwise taxes for QC social programs while QC environmentalists block my livelihood.... And when we have to pay for the environmental disaster that you Albertans refuse even to acknowledge... And if we talk about historical equalization, you have received money before oil, and if we talk about the stupid choice you make when you have surplus, you send little 100$ check to all your citizen so they will buy rationally more F150, and when oil price plunge, you don't have anything because you are too stupid to plan that it is a cyclical commodity...come on with the Quebec bashing, I can bash Alberta a lot if you ask me too. The amount of money Alberta received in the distant past is so nominal as to be insignificant. Alberta's govt sent cheques to everyone a couple of times with surplus oil revenue from our resources. Quebec sends 100s of dollars to its citizens every year in the form of overly generous programs and subsidized hydro prices. They also use Alberta revenue. Which seems more fair to you? Not sure what you're talking about regarding the crash. Oil is pretty low right now. Alberta isn't receiving any equilization, so we seem to still be OK. On the other hand, QC is receiving over $11 billion this year, roughly $1300 for every man woman and child in the province. You're welcome. Amusing for a defender of QC equilization to be bashing Albertan spending. Those who live in glass houses... Sorry everyone for the digression :) Fair enough. But it is not my fault or your fault that the equalization is setup the way it is. And we both know that the amount wouldn't change no matter what is our level of public expanse in Quebec. Even if we wre to cut in our social programs, we would receive the funding. I am not saying it is good or bad, I am saying it is that way now. Equalization is based on the relative richness, with a somewhat strange formula. Cost of living is not included into that. Petrol is such a unique asset that is distorting it all, and making you Albertans far richer than everyone else for now. Still, you don't pay for everything just in Alberta by the way. But I don't accept the idea that hydro is subsidized, our real cost of production are infinitesimal, thus the low rates. Nothing else. Should we change the equalization, probably? But it is not easy, isn'it? The Canadien federation is a strange beast, we all know that. Quebec would probably have to adapt if the equalization changes, but overall, the whole idea is to redistribute money among Canada, and as far as I know, we are part of it. To SJ: Hey, I know we have historically benefited from oil as a society (I mean, the humanity as a whole), but there is no way this is our future. This is part of what I am telling. I am not to refuse that money, because I think we should use that money to build a better future. I like the way Norwegians deal with it. They know it won't be a panacae forever, so they plan accordingly. And I work hard here and pay taxes, to both governments, and I do not agree to many decisions, but it is the way it is. And I will continue to say to everyone, Quebecois like Albertans that we need to stop our petrol junkiness, that's it.

Who the hell cares whether he's a separatist? I have far more respect for the true separatists in Quebec who are prepared to go their own way, for better or for worse, than the weasels in Quebec who do not truly want to separate but just want to use the threat to try to extort money from the other provinces. Those particular weasels happily accept equalization money which is funded by oil extraction, but then refuse to permit the exploration of shale gas in Quebec along the St. Lawrence (ie, for them, petroleum money is good, as long as it's not related to development in their own backyard). Those are the people who are effectively on welfare and refuse to take a job even when there is an obvious job available. Those weasels are worthy of our disdain. The true separatists who are prepared to go their own way, come what may, are worthy of our respect. They at least have principles. They are telling us to stick our equalization transfers where the sun doesn't shine, and they'll happily accept the consequences. SJ What I was reffering to was that Albertan governments have been quite stupid through the years to not build a more resilient economy. When petrol goes up, they are planning like Alberta will be rich foreover, with oil projection at the top for a long time, when petrol goes down, they are not ready, and it's the same every time. And some Albertans might be stupid too, as they do not prepare also for the driest times, or to prepare the after-petrol. And some Quebecois are stupid too, for sure. I am not a separatist, at least not a fervent one. I am neither a fervent federalist. I do not believe that there is such a thing as Canada, as BC is one thing, Alberta a different world, Ontario another one, Quebec another one, and so on. WE happen to be together, we might as well try to make it works, but if Quebec separates from Canada some day, I'm fine with that also. We do receive some money from your oil because it is the way it's done with this equalization thing that is part of what the Canada is. But a time will come when Alberta may need some money and it will flow through the Canadien federal government also. Actually, equalization is not all, and if you look at the bigger pictures, everyone pay taxes and receive some services or money, sometimes less, sometimes more. And we pay a lot more taxes in Quebec, we are not just living from federal cash. You can make those choices also if you want. And I will do whatever I can to reduce our oil dependency, and Albertans should do that, or they will have some hard moments in the years to come.

If that was the end, I don't think you'd get many complaints. But the fact of the matter is that the rest of Canada pays higher taxes to pay for excess spending in Quebec. Both Federal spending well in excess of receipts from QC, as well as direct transfers through equalization. If your choices only impacted your taxes, I wouldn't care. But as an Albertan paying higher than otherwise taxes for QC social programs while QC environmentalists block my livelihood.... And when we have to pay for the environmental disaster that you Albertans refuse even to acknowledge... And if we talk about historical equalization, you have received money before oil, and if we talk about the stupid choice you make when you have surplus, you send little 100$ check to all your citizen so they will buy rationally more F150, and when oil price plunge, you don't have anything because you are too stupid to plan that it is a cyclical commodity...come on with the Quebec bashing, I can bash Alberta a lot if you ask me too.

Renewable power is here to stay. If your world view doesn't line up with that, you'll stay frustrated and bash others who are aligned. In the meantime, my $10 per month goes towards killing off fossil fuel because of the near zero marginal cost of renewable power. The capitalist in me thinks that will further my investment in Berkshire Hathaway. Why I'm posting here! I do agree with you. I am just asking why Cardboard is bashing my province because someone brings up an interesting fact about wind turbines and Berkshire!

Subsidies exist to help kikcstart some technologies, and all the great advances tha tyou claim the free market is doing would not all be there if they weren't subsidies to kickstart them. that is not always true, but sometimes yes. And if you talk about subsidies, could you defend the far largest subsidies from which oil and gas benefit before bashing everything else. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year Oh and where is it written that subsidies are evil? The idea is to get better life, and subsidies are a tool among others, like free market is, ideology is not good. We have to think about the end results, and let's find the means that will improve our quality of life, our environment, our healt, etc.