Canada and us energy relationship to velocity

canada and us energy relationship to velocity

The Clean Energy Dialogue embarked upon by Canada and the United States testifies to this importance. On the one hand, because of the. Liquidity-Velocity Multipliers, Menger, Money, and Financial Crises. return on an asset will be inversely related to its liquidity, and the equilibrium price of an asset will be inversely related Digg This | Save to .. I like to think of it more like potential energy (liquidity) and kinetic energy (velocity). Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Ventyx Energy Velocity Suite. U.S. electricity trade with Mexico represents a small fraction—less than At even lower voltage levels, a few ties connect southern and Transmission across the U.S.-Canada border, meanwhile, is more integrated.

Like any physical quantity that is a function of velocity, the kinetic energy of an object depends on the relationship between the object and the observer's frame of reference. Thus, the kinetic energy of an object is not invariant. Spacecraft use chemical energy to launch and gain considerable kinetic energy to reach orbital velocity. In an entirely circular orbit, this kinetic energy remains constant because there is almost no friction in near-earth space. However, it becomes apparent at re-entry when some of the kinetic energy is converted to heat.

If the orbit is elliptical or hyperbolicthen throughout the orbit kinetic and potential energy are exchanged; kinetic energy is greatest and potential energy lowest at closest approach to the earth or other massive body, while potential energy is greatest and kinetic energy the lowest at maximum distance.

canada and us energy relationship to velocity

Without loss or gain, however, the sum of the kinetic and potential energy remains constant. Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiardsthe player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick.

If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically, and the ball it hit accelerates its speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it.

Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisionsin which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisionskinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound, binding energy breaking bound structures. Flywheels have been developed as a method of energy storage. This illustrates that kinetic energy is also stored in rotational motion.

Several mathematical descriptions of kinetic energy exist that describe it in the appropriate physical situation.

Kinetic energy

However, if the speed of the object is comparable to the speed of light, relativistic effects become significant and the relativistic formula is used. If the object is on the atomic or sub-atomic scalequantum mechanical effects are significant, and a quantum mechanical model must be employed. Newtonian kinetic energy[ edit ] Kinetic energy of rigid bodies[ edit ] In classical mechanicsthe kinetic energy of a point object an object so small that its mass can be assumed to exist at one pointor a non-rotating rigid body depends on the mass of the body as well as its speed.

These differences have obvious implications for any clean energy strategy. On the one hand, the US can achieve very large emissions reductions by replacing its coal-fired electricity plants with less carbon-intensive alter- natives, while Canada requires a broader range of measures across multiple sectors to reduce emissions. On the other hand, electrification in Canada provides greater emissions reductions due to the lower emissions intensity of electricity generation.

The Canada-US trade and energy relationship - Policy Options

This has implica- tions for both the ambition and pace of climate policy development and implementation here in Canada. Already, GHG emissions targets in Canada have been moderated to line up with less stringent proposed US targets, at 17 percent below levels by Yet US ambition and timing on the climate file remains unclear and uncertain. Early momentum in Congress with the Waxman-Markey Bill, together with various Senate bills, has stalled. A federally mandated cap- and-trade system that could link with Canada remains in limbo.

Clean ener- gy technology discussions have not yielded specific results. Recent tailpipe emission standards harmonization is the sole substantive element. An inevitable question for Canada will be whether and how it does some- thing on climate policy while the US does nothing and delays persist south of the border.

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy NRTEE reports in and demonstrate that an early, economy- wide carbon price signal is the most cost effective means of meeting deep GHG emissions reduction targets. Delay is costly as the carbon price will have to rise to meet stated targets in a shorter time frame. Like all countries, Canada will seek to implement policies that achieve the most GHG emissions reduc- tions at the least economic cost. A core issue for the development of a clean energy strategy for Canada will there- fore be whether it takes action on cli- mate policy objectives now, or only at a later date pending US action.

For Canada, there are both risks and opportunities in US climate pol- icy and its impact on Canadian ener- gy and climate policies. Table 2, developed by the NRTEE, illustrates the types of trade-off risks at play from both an economic and environ- mental perspective in contemplating various leading, lagging, or harmo- nizing scenarios for Canada.

They include competitive sectoral impacts, regional distribution impacts, appli- cation of border carbon adjustments, and missing both medium-term and longer-term tar- gets. It offers a way to contemplate optimal Canadian policy design to minimize risks.

No option is risk-free " including harmonization " and there are inescapable costs to all options. The table is illustrative only at this stage; Canadian policy choic- es and responses will ultimately determine the likely level of risk.

A core reason for these underlying risks is the dif- ferent expected rates of growth in GHG emissions in the two countries. This is reflected in figure 5, which shows the percent increase in GHG emissions over levels as predicted by cur- rent business-as-usual projections for Canada and the US.

Higher emissions growth in Canada is principally a result of the forecast continued growth of the Alberta oil-sands. Oil production including oil sands in Alberta relies primarily on electricity generated from coal.

  • Hot Topics

As oil sands production is elec- tricity-intensive, this translates into greater overall GHG emissions growth in Canada, suggesting that a greater level of effort and likely higher carbon prices will be needed to reduce emis- sions and meet the newly stated tar- gets in Canada than will be needed in the United States. From a sector-level perspective, two distinct differences between the countries emerge. Industrial emissions have shown strong growth in the past decade in Canada and are predicted to continue to grow in relative importance.

As reflected in figure 6, byemis- sions from industry are forecast to account for nearly 50 percent of total GHG emissions in Canada " com- pared to around 15 percent in the US.

canada and us energy relationship to velocity