Oil and gas do not need subsidies to be profitable. Nor does it get much. Most of what the environmental lobby calls 'subsidies' are things like not charging the oil and gas industry for the pollution cars put out.
Even if the direct subsidies (along the lines of "Here's a tax cut to help pay for exploration) to oil and gas are minimal and not needed, that doesn't mean there aren't indirect subsidies.
Fossil fuel usage contributes to global warming, which means things like increased flooding in coastal areas, food production problems, increased numbers of forest fires. (Not saying that these didn't happen before... just that they will become more common.) At this point in time, those using the fossil fuels don't necessarily pay for the costs of dealing with those externalities, so that amounts to a sort of 'back door' subsidy for fossil fuels. (Carbon taxes do address this to a certain degree, but those are relatively new.)
Wind and solar will never be profitable in Canada. Nor reliable. We either build nuclear power stations or give up.
I agree that expansion of nuclear power would be great benefit in dealing with global warming, and I certainly hope we build new plants (with new technology where appropriate).
About wind/solar: It is true that there will be times when an individual solar or wind installation will be ineffective due to lack of wind or cloudy weather. But the plan is that there will be multiple wind/solar plants in different geographical areas. While one plant may not work, another will be able to cover for it. (No different than a nuclear or fossil fuel plant being down for maintenance.... other generating capacity will be expected to cover for it.)
Now, I don't think wind or solar by themselves will provide all the electricity needs. (I do think nuclear, hydro, etc.) will also need to be a major part of the mix.) But, that doesn't mean they can't be part of the mix, or that they can't be profitable.
Home
Contact
Login
Register