"Against oil" (meaning, development, business, jobs, etc) has been the big conservative complaint against the Liberals, that they sacrifice prosperity and jobs for their (wrong anyway) environmental tenderness.
They're now giving away precisely nothing: the commitment to get all the approvals through, the environment compromised, for a pipeline that's never going to happen.

The money simply isn't there for such a mammoth multi-project. Money is definitely there for tweaks and tricks to squeeze and extra million barrels/day out of the tar sands, and to get that extra million down various improved pipelines, for "just a few billion" in upgrades:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... ... the 80/20 rule, as it were.

But to fill a whole new million bbl/day pipeline, you'd need a major new oil sands mine, like the Kearl Lake Projects back in 2013, which added 880,000/day for a grand total of $20B. (Not just a new mine, you see, but facilities to dilute the bitumen, a pipeline from Edmonton to send diluent, another to send diluted bitumen back, at a billion each...15 years ago.)

So, even if there are new efficiencies, $25B for the sands expansion is conservative, and so is $25B for the next pipeline, even without the pandemic and giant '21 flood that put the last one up to $34B. After recent inflation for construction costs, $50B is really a rock-bottom estimate.

So, if they deliver a million barrels a day, each barrel has to pay the interest on $50,000, and then make a profit. They need over $40/bbl for operating costs, so they really must have over $50/bbl global oil prices...from 2030 through the early 2040s before they get into the gravy. Nobody not paid to be delusional thinks that prices will not go lower and lower as the market starts to decline. The Saudis will probably crash the price (as they did in 2014) just to drive competitors broke.

Nobody's going to risk that. That's the conclusion of the retired Imperial Oil economic/market analyst, Ross Belot, in Canada's Macleans:
https://macleans.ca/economy/wh...

So Mr. Carney can promise to shoot whales personally if they'll just build a pipeline, in the serene knowledge that it isn't going to happen. The only thing he has to do to stop a pipeline is not promise a penny of public money to back it. Since the government already had to pay for the last pipeline, he's got a popular excuse.

I could not tell you one line of PHP in 2025, though I learned enough in 2004 to write a ticket-sales application with a database. It was for one event, so I picked the famously awful, kludgy, just-for-duct-tape language to get 'er done fast, never need to be maintained.

I have to admit, those calumnies against PHP have faded over the years, and here we are, >20 years later. Some 20 years earlier, I had learned PL/1 at University, the language of our MULTICS mainframe. It was predicted to take over all programming in coming years, unless ADA beat it out. The wisdom of 1983.

Selected because it's the information page available? Which

I don't spend much time on slashdot, rather in economics reading. Paul Krugman is probably the most-famous detractor of average, proponent of median, income reporting. I believe his best-known point was that when Bill Gates walks into a 20,000 seat football stadium, the "average attendee" just became a multi-millionaire.
He repeated his 1992 point in a longish 2014 article:
https://prospect.org/2014/06/0...

But my whole post was off-topic for this slashdot article, and we're now moving further afield, and should take this up when income inequality, or relative income of different states, is the actual topic.

But I gotta say - that St Louis Fed page says it rose from 27K to 45K in 45 years. That's 1.1% gain per year. Krugman's own essay above is about how that number is smaller than the percentage gains of the top 10%, much less the top 1%, much much less the top 0.1%...which is what the inequality debate is all about.

But my stronger point was the use of "wealth" rather than "income". Wealth is the integral of (income - living.costs) over time, modified by preference for saving over spending. (Japanese are great savers, so are Canadians). If your income keeps going up, but your inescapable living costs like housing and higher education also skyrocket, your wealth will do poorly, as with Gen Z not having housing.

Canada has THIRTY PERCENT higher median wealth than America. That's the sum of savings, despite lower income, because we have far lower medical insurance costs and precarity.

Don't discourage! Conservatives HATE looking at median numbers instead of averages, normally. This is my discovery-of-the-week, the "Median Wealth" by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (click on the "MEDIAN" column and sort so that Iceland is at top)

If you think of 'wealth' as "the integral over time of (income - living expenses)", then it's a much better measure of whether your society maximizes the number of people with minimal stress...and on THAT metric of national success, the USA is way below Canada and nine European nations. But economists like Noah Smith still refer to Europe "catching up" with the USA, or "falling behind" based on *average* income changes...when most increases go to just a few percent.

Let's hear it for median economic stats.

If you read around a few more articles on this, the new "scenario" assuming no changed regulations or programs anywhere, was added under "pressure". The IEA has some independence, and came up with the peak-before-2030 scenarios a few years ago.

OPEC+ reacted in horror and condemnation, of course, - how dare they effectively call it a sunset industry that will shrink through the 2030s - and set up their own predictions group that came up with a scenario like this one. IEA, (which isn't entirely independent, it's funded by governments, some of them petrostates, and takes funding straight from oil companies themselves) has been under pressure to add the OPEC+ "happy days" scenario to their own suite of scenarios.

The scenarios all have assumptions, and differ because of the assumptions. You can believe these are reasonable assumptions, and the earlier ones wildly optimistic. But a fifth of the cars sold last year were electric, and a quarter of the cars sold this year. The cars are getting better, the underlying battery technologies are improving visibly every year.

Bottom line, this new scenario is heavily influenced by those who would profit from it, and not likely.

http://brander.ca/cordcutcuug

My presentation to the Calgary Unix Users Group on getting the local TV stations Over-the-Air, onto a shared Unix directory as .MPG files that I can save, edit, compress. Just sayin'. It's not even hard. $35/year for the subscription to the index/schedule/search service that gives me the same schedule grid as cable always did.

OTA...well...and of course, the fact that I hate Amazon, Apple, and Disney as monopolist swine and care little for their "IP rights"...

I think he died in great sorrow and sadness, because the GOP he took to great heights is now in the hands of a guy who will probably have Cheney's daughter killed if he can get away with it. No family in the GOP is as utterly disempowered and cancelled as the Cheney family; Liz couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Wyoming now or in 20 years.

Yes, it was likely Karl Rove, and not Dick Cheney, who was the source of the 'anonymous' quote that "every so often you have to throw one of these crappy little countries up against a wall to intimidate all the others", but I'm sure that stated Cheney's thoughts as well.

I agree with all your comments, but would stress that the REALLY bad thing about the Iraq war was not the strategy, but the open, transparent, obvious lies. I mean, when the WHOLE WORLD rolls its eyes at your story, at the UN, when nobody is convinced, and you go forward ANYWAY, you're basing your whole national stance on lies.

"We can lie and get away with it because we are too powerful to hold to account", was the underlying power of Cheney. That same conversation with the "crappy little nations" comment had the even more quoted line: "We're an empire now, and we create our own reality".

To perhaps belabour the obvious, I'm talking about Trump, and how Cheney and Bush showed the way for Trump to just really go for it, and blatantly make America an Empire based on any lies he feels like, the more-preposterous the better, to rub our noses in it.

Turn the question around: how much renewables and storage can you build for the kind of money people are spending on nukes?

The link the previous replier gave to the Ontario project notes that they expect to pay out $20B in capital costs for the construction and startup of the four SMRs and their supply chain. For 1.2GW, that's about $17/watt. Let's round down a bit to allow for future cost improvements and say renewables must beat $15/watt.

Both solar arrays and windfarms are now clocking in at something just over $1/watt, installed. That's nameplate max capacity of course, and solar is maybe 20% capacity in Canada, wind 30%. So you need either 5x1.2=6GW of solar, or 3.33X1.2= 4GW of wind, or some combination of the two.

Then you need storage. Sodium-ion is expected to hit $40/kWh next year. That $40M/GWh, or $50M per "plant hour" of a 1.2GW plant.

Let's overbuild the generation, with 4GW of solar (x20% = 66% of 1.2GW) plus 2 GW of wind (x 33% = 55% of 1.2 GW). But we'll need a lot of storage, let's get over 4 days of it: 100 hours.

So, that's $5B in storage, $4B in solar, and $2B in wind, we're up to $11B project cost. Round up to $12B, for exactly $10/watt as a planning figure.

I don't believe the fraction of women wanting 0,1,2 babies has changed. The number wanting 3 has declined a bit.
But it's easy to figure out that if 10% of women either don't want or cannot have children, or ("never find the right time"), and another 10% have just one child, then 3X that many have to have 3 or more kids to balance them out.

Balance always came from the several percent that had 4+ kids. That number has collapsed from several down to under 1%. In America, Mormons used to contribute a lot of 4+ child families, this vanished a generation ago:
https://religionnews.com/2019/...

So, you can't beat on women for "not having kids". Most have not changed from the number their mom and grandmom produced.

The rest have looked at a kid costs $300K over 20 years, sort of like your housing costs. And decided to raise 3 kids in a $900K house rather than 4 kids in a $600K house. That's the tradeoff.

My copy of Petr Beckmann's "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" is at least that old, and dog-eared. For decades, I arm-waved about the possibilities of nuclear, the incredible costs of coal and carbon. That goes back before CO2 was a villain. Ash and particulates were bad enough.

But. I just don't see the money, any more. For a long time, I thought "If only they'd build them right, stamp them out like cookies, only a few designs" or "The next generation will be completely walk-away safe, that'll do it", were going to make it work.

But, I'm an engineer. My job was always to get 'er done, cheaply as possible with every quality and standard met, and now I see that coming with just renewables and storage...cheaper.

If I'm wrong, China is going to prove it before Bill Gates does. They apparently have something like 20 nuke projects a-building, with just about every magic solution being tried. Pebble beds, thorium salts, the works. And China will be the one that can measure them up against renewables costs, too.

In 5 years, we'll know. But I am not hopeful that nuclear has a prayer, not since the sodium batteries cut the price of storage yet again.

...sounds like the Exercise #1 in the first tutorial of my Operating Systems class in 1982.

I think I still have the notes in a 3-ring if Amazon needs them.

All the replies are making the assumption that the AI-independent person NEVER uses AI at work or wherever, that "using AI" is a binary choice. But my comparison is to "screen time" - it's like saying screentime-restricted kids won't know how to use computer. You can use AI all you want, as long as you skip it often enough to keep up your mental skills.

Secondly, the replies miss the point that if you don't keep up your critical thinking and analysis skills, then you won't know how to use the AI as well as somebody who does.

Drugs challenged society with addiction. Those who could avoid, or fight off, addiction continued, many were lost. Societal rules changed, as societies, not just species, evolve to resist challenge and continue to succeed.

Those who do NOT use AI heavily and keep up their own ability to solve problems will succeed over those who do not, in the long run. Parents will learn to restrict AI they way they fight "screen time" now, as they've always had to teach kids not to be lazy - a very default human choice, laziness!

Societal rules can change. It isn't "winning" a race to use a motorcycle. "Winning" at academics by using a writing motorcycle will have to acquire the same meaninglessness.

I have no fears for the species or even the society. Just for those who don't see the challenge and respond to it.

Don't talk about productivity or innovation, talk about the general, widespread, median prosperity? Can Germany afford good schools, are kids going hungry in France? These are the measures I care about.

You're talking about measures that INVESTORS care about, and I'm not one.

I just read a dissertation by Terry Chu, a doctoral candidate in Toronto; it was about how different the COVID infection rates were in districts that read mainly Chinese media, and our media. Far worse for us. It turns out the Chinese media mainly wrote about COVID as a public health problem, a risk to life. The main Toronto papers mostly wrote about the *economic* problem, the risk to money-making.

This is another case of writing about "risks to money", not "risks to the population".