Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by S'toon, May 30, 2016.
Full article at:
Fossil fuel decline could be 'faster than expected,' government think-tank warns
Alaska is hurting something fierce. The state is/was relying heavily on oil royalties.
Alaska's oil glory days aren't coming back. The world has moved on.
We are big in supplying uranium.
Whilst not always a "popular" choice of generating electricity, I've read that nuclear reactors generate 15-20% of world wide demand.
It's also probably the most expensive way to generate electricity.
We're not an energy superpower but we are a net exporter. We're also rich in renewables so hopefully it will all come out in the wash and we can retain this lofty status.
Meantime, Quebec and Labrador are saying "uh, hey guys, how about some hydro power..."
(Yes, of course there are also issues there with native lands, methane emissions from submerged forest, super-long transmission lines, etc.)
Seems like the prairie provinces could do well with wind, but you're competing against the US great plains and the transmission lines are longer.
Canada is a net exporter of power, but we have unresolved distribution issues all over the place. There is no complete west-east pipeline for oil (yet? I tend to think that the Canada East pipeline will be a dog's breakfast financially IF it is ever built ) and so we export oil to the US/via the US while the eastern half of the country imports oil from elsewhere--especially OPEC (!) Then, east coast oil via Newfoundland & Labrador's refinery cannot be sold in the rest of Canada--only in NL, or exported (iniquitous iron-clad contractual clause grandfathered in) Very very touchy territory about electricity too (books have been written) and much of the electrical output has to exported to the US because we don't have the interconnections to go west-east, or east-west, as we found out in two separate and serious Ice Storms. 'Energy Super Power' is a bit of an over-reach.