Canada Creates Carbon-Capture Incentives, Critical Mineral Plan To Cut Emissions (reuters.com) 31
Canada will offer a substantial incentive to companies that invest in carbon-capture technologies and will set aside as much as $3 billion over eight years to accelerate critical mineral exploration, extraction and processing as it seeks to cut carbon emissions. From a report In this year's budget presented on Thursday, Canada is introducing a 60% tax credit for equipment used to capture carbon from the air, and 50% for all other capture equipment, plus a 37.5% credit for transportation and storage equipment. Carbon capture and storage (CSS) facilities are expected to be a key part of global efforts to contain emissions from fossil fuels. Canada is the world's fourth-largest oil producer and has a set a goal of generating net-zero emissions by 2050. "For the oil and gas sector this tax credit, combined with the fact they are generating massive revenues right now, is more than enough to reduce the risk associated with going ahead with CCS projects," said Chris Severson-Baker, Alberta regional director at the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think-tank.
Ridiculous ask, poor incentives. (Score:4, Interesting)
Canada's oil and gas industries took heavy losses in recent years - so much so that you aren't going to patch capital investor CCS sentiment with tax cuts and the claim that current "massive" profits somehow justify throwing long-term money at carbon capture. The federal government has been vocally and demonstrably anti fossil fuels for some time. In the minds of investors, money spent on CCS is simply wasted if you believe government policies will invalidate your industry in the medium term. And there is every reason to believe that's the path forward.
Not saying that's a bad thing... but if you keep talking about tearing up the roads in favour of building bicycle paths, don't ask me to build a gas station.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government has been vocally and demonstrably anti fossil fuels for some time.
They have, and they haven't. This government had to purchase the transmountain pipeline project when all the investors walked away after the previous Conservative government screwed up the approval process and our supreme court threw it all in the trashbin the very first chance they got. They could have just let it die at that point.
They have promised to end all subsidies for oil and gas development, but they've yet to actually do that despite promising it in 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't have to purchase the project - they chose to. It was a poor, poor decision. It should have been allowed to die. I would argue the former government didn't really screw it up. They operated under the paradigms established for decades. The governments changed the rules on everybody in mid flight - in fact, very late in the flight.
O&G in Canada has a very limited future. It's in the best interests of the companies to milk the current situation for everything they can get, and operate under the
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't have to purchase the project - they chose to.
That's what I'm saying, in contradiction to your statement that they are "vocally and demonstrably anti fossil fuels for some time". This demonstrates otherwise.
I would argue the former government didn't really screw it up. They operated under the paradigms established for decades. The governments changed the rules on everybody in mid flight - in fact, very late in the flight.
Well, the way I remember it.. The Harper Conservatives promised to streamline the approval process for pipelines to make it easier to get these things done. The new super ultra fast approval process was thrown out before it could ever approve a single pipeline and the process had to start over under the old paradigms established for decades, prio
Re: (Score:2)
Alberta needs a pipeline to tidewater. Sad the government has to complete it with all the waste and inefficiency that implies, but I'm glad it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would rather the private sector built TMX, but a lot of people were determined to make it incredibly difficult.
It was being built by the private sector, and it was the previous government's attempts to make it easier that caused the new approval process that it underwent to be ruled invalid.
What is it that you are claiming the current government did to make it incredibly difficult? The Liberals let that existing process complete, then gave it approval. It was the supreme court that said the environmental assessment was garbage, and the FN consultation was garbage. That happened prior to Liberals being electe
Re: (Score:2)
What is it that you are claiming the current government did to make it incredibly difficult?
I didn't claim that. There is plenty of blame to go around - the CPC, the BC government, First Nations, and numerous foreign interest groups. This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants a pipeline in their backyard is the moral of the story.
Yes. NIMBYs add nothing useful to society. Even our provinces are not able to cooperate on projects that are beneficial to the country as a whole. It is pretty sad really.
As I see it, any attempt for revenue sharing from the pipeline is seen by them as "stealing from Alberta".
TMX signed unprecedented Mutual Benefit Agreements with First Nations in BC and Alberta, even before it was bought by the government. I hope in the end that it will end up owned entirely by those same groups.
I live in MB and would love to see the Port of Churchill developed further. We have just as much opposition to progress as a
Re: (Score:2)
could easily build / upgrade a rail link or pipeline to Churchill Manitoba
Easily? I think it's obviously the best shot for getting oil to Europe, but it's not going to be easy. There's several factors that make it a great idea, including
* the fact that Churchill recently was recently completely isolated [winnipegsun.com] due to a lack of infrastructure.
* It could be paired with infrastructure to bring Manitoba's abundant clean Hydro electricity to Alberta which currently relies on a lot of coal burning.
* We should be doing what we can to increase our infrastructure toward the North, give
Re: (Score:2)
the three 'conservative' prairie provinces, or any major pipeline corporation could easily build / upgrade a rail link or pipeline to Churchill Manitoba.
I've been advocating for that for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some activity on this front, but for the most part Manitoba can only export Hydro to the US. We can sell power to California, but there's no direct way to sell it Calgary. That seems crazy.
https://www.cbc.ca/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Churchill is a very bad idea. It takes someone who has no idea how hard it is to maintain isolated equipment in extremely cold environments to come up with this stupidity. Also, Churchill is close for 2/3 to 3/4 or the year because of ice. It is a barely usable port. And the ice that is there make it a very bad place to bring in big tankers. The ground getting there is absolute shit for building on. The existing rail line is out of service much of the time because of failures of the track foundations. It is
Capture the Alberta Tar Sands? (Score:2)
If I could just capture those tar sands and somehow sequester them. Think a chainlink fence would do?
Re: (Score:2)
Payola for green insiders (Score:3)
Very wrong and bad incentives (Score:2)
Capilano University (North Vancouver BC) business management grad with tons of Econ papers here.
These.
Won't.
Work.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is 10 times as expensive as just literally BUILDING renewable energy infrastructure at today's prices. So for $1 billion you get 1/10th as much as if you literally just BUILT and created lots of jobs doing it, wind and solar.
Period.
Full stop.
Also, Canada literally is INCREASING emissions. They talk about reducing emissions concentration but they are STILL INCREAS
Re: (Score:2)
it's cheaper, it creates more permanent better paying jobs
No, it doesn't. It is either cheaper OR it creates more better-paying jobs. Claiming it does both is nonsense.
When you pay for X, you are paying (directly or indirectly) the wages and salaries of the people who create X. If another option, Y, costs less, then you are paying less in wages and salaries to the people who create Y.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by my correct assertion that building and maintaining solar and wind projects has both a higher paying job rate and longer term job creation than any of the existing CCS projects.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by my correct assertion that building and maintaining solar and wind projects has both a higher paying job rate and longer term job creation than any of the existing CCS projects.
Most of Canada's fossil fuel production is for export. That brings in a lot of revenue.
The potential to export solar or wind energy is very limited. Sure you can replace some domestic fossil fuel use with renewables (that leaves more fossil fuels for export), but it is not going to be a cash cow for anyone. If we are going to continue to export fossil fuels (and we most certainly are), then it makes sense to address the issues specific to that.
Re: (Score:2)
The potential to export solar or wind energy is very limited.
We could build an HVDC line from wind turbines in southern Manitoba to Minneapolis and Chicago for far less than the cost of Keystone-XL.
Re: (Score:2)
We could build an HVDC line from wind turbines in southern Manitoba to Minneapolis and Chicago for far less than the cost of Keystone-XL.
We could, except I fail to see the benefit of importing wind energy across the border when they could just build the windmills in the US instead. A 500kV AC transmission line was just completed a couple years ago to export hydroelectric power to Minnesota. We use HVDC lines to bring power from the dams to southern Manitoba.
https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regula... [hydro.mb.ca]
The oil that would have flowed through Keystone is still flowing by train. It cuts into the profits, but such is life, not as big a deal while oi
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see the benefit of importing wind energy across the border
1. There are big benefits to geographic distribution. If one area is becalmed, the winds are even stronger elsewhere.
2. The winds are stronger further north, and power goes up as the cube of the wind speed. If the winds are 10% stronger, they produce 30% more power.
Re: (Score:2)
There are big benefits to geographic distribution. If one area is becalmed, the winds are even stronger elsewhere.
No argument there, but despite the generally good historic relationship between Canada and the US, it does not preclude someone who is not a team player moving in next door. We look at Line 5 as an example. You should not rely on cooperation from any other country for your energy needs if you can avoid it, but everyone seems to do it anyway.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co... [theglobeandmail.com]
The winds are stronger further north, and power goes up as the cube of the wind speed. If the winds are 10% stronger, they produce 30% more power.
Sure. More wind, less sunlight. We are indeed starting to install more wind capacity, but its primary aim is to supplement hydro,
Re: (Score:2)
You should not rely on cooperation from any other country for your energy needs
Interdependence helps to maintain good relations.
Of course, that doesn't always work. In 1914, Britain and Germany had more mutual trade than any other pair of countries.
it is more sensible to use it for that purpose and continue to export hydropower than to export wind power directly.
The hydropower is in the East around James Bay and in the Rocky Mountains of BC and AB. That is a very long way from the prairies of Manitoba.
Re: (Score:2)
Interdependence helps to maintain good relations. Of course, that doesn't always work.
Yes. Also witness Europe and Russia.
The hydropower is in the East around James Bay and in the Rocky Mountains of BC and AB. That is a very long way from the prairies of Manitoba.
BC has hydro power. AB has none. BC has Site C hydro power protesters. AB has various oil protesters.
Northern Quebec has lots of hydro power. Americans don't want it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/... [www.cbc.ca]
Manitoba prairies have hydro dams in the north as well. We sell some power, but for the most part I'm fine with just having a cheap and reliable domestic supply.
carbon capture is bullshit (Score:2)
The Australian government has given millions to companies attempting to develop carbon capture
and it has proven to be an expensive fraud,
unable to even sequester a small percentage of what was hoped.