What If Canada Had Wind and Not Oilsands?

[markslawson + 1,042]

NickW - I note you only pointed to very short-lived mines, in your response, not coal or nuclear. In fact the 10-15 years - and that's very short, open cut maybe, where they don't need to build underground - refers to the actual deposit. You'll find that much of the mining equipment - ore processing plant etc - will be used for other mines. Its the same for the fracking boom. The actual deposit being fracked is only exploited for a few years, then they up the drill rig and send it somewhere else.  As for servicing if you can use ships when its ice free so be it, but this is all horrifically expensive - they would have to remain at the site some time, particularly if they've built those things where full-on sea gales can hit them. Lot of maintenance required. That they haven't been swept away entirelyb is a miracle of modern engineering. Putting giant wind turbines in the North Sea and expect them to last 20 years is, you have to admit, totally daft. Even on-shore, wind farms are marginal to say the least, but at least you can get at them. Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. Thanks for that.. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

NickW - I note you only pointed to very short-lived mines, in your response, not coal or nuclear. In fact the 10-15 years - and that's very short, open cut maybe, where they don't need to build underground - refers to the actual deposit. You'll find that much of the mining equipment - ore processing plant etc - will be used for other mines. Its the same for the fracking boom. The actual deposit being fracked is only exploited for a few years, then they up the drill rig and send it somewhere else.  As for servicing if you can use ships when its ice free so be it, but this is all horrifically expensive - they would have to remain at the site some time, particularly if they've built those things where full-on sea gales can hit them. Lot of maintenance required. That they haven't been swept away entirelyb is a miracle of modern engineering. Putting giant wind turbines in the North Sea and expect them to last 20 years is, you have to admit, totally daft. Even on-shore, wind farms are marginal to say the least, but at least you can get at them. Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. Thanks for that.. 

This whole life expectancy issue is completely irrelevant. The key features here are EROI and EROEI. In any case the life of the wind farm site is infinite unlike a mine which no matter how large will always be exhausted eventually. 

There is no dispute that Wind (and Solar) have needed subsidy. This was generally viewed as a way of assisting new technologies break into a mature market. One argument for subsidies was that solar and wind don't have the negative externalities that fossil fuels have from environmental, health and energy security perspectives.   

Solar and onshore wind are now reaching parity with fossil fuel generation. The costs of offshore are falling rapidly. The next generation of turbines which will be 8-12MW will drop costs further as economies of scale are achieved. The industry is maturing so has learnt much about improving reliability and reducing costs. 

As for being 'swept away' - well doesn't that same concern apply to Oil Rigs? We have plenty of them in the North Sea in far more exposed sites.