When to Say No (to Oil)
Zipperfish @ Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:21 pm
Xort Xort:
They just tend to cost wildly more, and electrical power makes a terrible replacement for liquid fuel. What green energy product are you going to replace our vehicle fuels with? Some sort of bio fuel? Well I always wanted to pay way more for both the fuel my car needs and the fuel I need.
They do cost more. Start-up costs and all that. R&D. Higher risk for investors. But there's also teh billions in subsidies for the oil and gas industries that gives them an advantage.
Cars can run on electricity. Maybe not all of them, but a good chunk. I'm fine with leaving liquid or gas chemical fuel for cars, but we really should be moving out of burning coal or gas for bulk energy as much as we can. In my opinion, given the threat of global warming, we should be approaching the energy R&D problem the way the US approached the moon problem.
Let's move to nuclear where we can, bosst R&D in nuclear (incluiding LTFRs and fusion), or space-based solar power.
$1:
Not a government project... This is a private business trying to build it.
Yes, but you have Natural Resources Minister Oliver down in the US trying ot sell it to the regulators and politicians. Again, when you are as cynical as teh Conservatives have been on environmental issues, people aren't goping to take you seriously on environmental issues.
Gunnair @ Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:24 pm
Xort Xort:
What green energy product are you going to replace our vehicle fuels with? Some sort of bio fuel?
Hydrogen.
raydan @ Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:28 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Xort Xort:
What green energy product are you going to replace our vehicle fuels with? Some sort of bio fuel?
Hydrogen.
Depends on what energy you're using to make that hydrogen... if you're using clean energy, all's good, if you're burning coal to make hydrogen, not so good.
Gunnair @ Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:06 pm
raydan raydan:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Xort Xort:
What green energy product are you going to replace our vehicle fuels with? Some sort of bio fuel?
Hydrogen.
Depends on what energy you're using to make that hydrogen... if you're using clean energy, all's good, if you're burning coal to make hydrogen, not so good.
Most likely nuclear, hydro, solar,
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:41 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Even the American Association of Railroads or whatever the group is called admitted that trains are a far more dangerous method to transport oil than a pipeline.
What the environuts don't seem to understand is, they're gonna get Alberta oil delivered to them one way or another.
Personally, I fail to see how more diesel trains will have less of an environemental impact than a pipeline.
Then again, not having one's head shoved firmly up one's posterior allows one to stand back and look at the bigger picture instead of getting emotionally attached to a simple-minded ideology.
It's funny because everytime I ask some anti-oil nut what they plan on replacing oil with, especially when it comes to the thousands of products made from oil, they have no answer and instead blab on about the environment and green energy.
What the environuts don't seem to understand is, they're gonna get Alberta oil delivered to them one way or another.
Personally, I fail to see how more diesel trains will have less of an environemental impact than a pipeline.
Then again, not having one's head shoved firmly up one's posterior allows one to stand back and look at the bigger picture instead of getting emotionally attached to a simple-minded ideology.
It's funny because everytime I ask some anti-oil nut what they plan on replacing oil with, especially when it comes to the thousands of products made from oil, they have no answer and instead blab on about the environment and green energy.
What's wrong with the environment and green energy? Are they inherently evil?
Sorry, that exact attitude is why the Harper government can't get a pipeline anywhere.
Really. So complaining about how EVERY time I ask some anti-oil nut what their solution is for replacing oil and they don't answer but respond with how important the environment is and oil exploitation is killing it and us, is "attitude"?
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:45 am
andyt andyt:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
It's funny because everytime I ask some anti-oil nut what they plan on replacing oil with, especially when it comes to the thousands of products made from oil, they have no answer and instead blab on about the environment and green energy.
Yep. We need oil. But we could reduce our use of it. Reduce energy consumption, use cleaner sources such as gas for cars, etc. Neither extremes are right here - we do need oil for the forseeable future, but we can be less piggy with it too.
Oh I agree. I'm certainly not saying it should be a free-for-all, environmental responsibility should always be a concern. But at the same time, Canada might as well make hay while the sun is still shining.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:48 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
raydan raydan:
Depends on what energy you're using to make that hydrogen... if you're using clean energy, all's good, if you're burning coal to make hydrogen, not so good.
Most likely nuclear, hydro, solar,
In Ontario, about 60% is nuclear and hydro-electric. I think there's also still two more reactors waiting to come back on line.
Bodah @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:29 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Really. So complaining about how EVERY time I ask some anti-oil nut what their solution is for replacing oil and they don't answer but respond with how important the environment is and oil exploitation is killing it and us, is "attitude"?
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
They never have a realistic answer, they will however be the first to smuggly cross their arms and tell you, your solution is wrong though.
Gunnair @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:14 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Even the American Association of Railroads or whatever the group is called admitted that trains are a far more dangerous method to transport oil than a pipeline.
What the environuts don't seem to understand is, they're gonna get Alberta oil delivered to them one way or another.
Personally, I fail to see how more diesel trains will have less of an environemental impact than a pipeline.
Then again, not having one's head shoved firmly up one's posterior allows one to stand back and look at the bigger picture instead of getting emotionally attached to a simple-minded ideology.
It's funny because everytime I ask some anti-oil nut what they plan on replacing oil with, especially when it comes to the thousands of products made from oil, they have no answer and instead blab on about the environment and green energy.
What the environuts don't seem to understand is, they're gonna get Alberta oil delivered to them one way or another.
Personally, I fail to see how more diesel trains will have less of an environemental impact than a pipeline.
Then again, not having one's head shoved firmly up one's posterior allows one to stand back and look at the bigger picture instead of getting emotionally attached to a simple-minded ideology.
It's funny because everytime I ask some anti-oil nut what they plan on replacing oil with, especially when it comes to the thousands of products made from oil, they have no answer and instead blab on about the environment and green energy.
What's wrong with the environment and green energy? Are they inherently evil?
Sorry, that exact attitude is why the Harper government can't get a pipeline anywhere.
Really. So complaining about how EVERY time I ask some anti-oil nut what their solution is for replacing oil and they don't answer but respond with how important the environment is and oil exploitation is killing it and us, is "attitude"?
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
Small minds live on both sides of the fence.
Clearly, you have not looked at the issues with either Keystone or Northern Gateway when it comes to environmental concerns. Spills are the primary concern from the pipeline side with the concern, and with some justification if one looks at Enbridge's record. Look up the ongoing issues with the Kalamazoo. For Northern Gateway, it's tanker traffic in Douglas Channel in particular and the North Coast in general. Those who oppose pipelines based on those concerns are hardly eco-nuts, though it appears the small minds that label them as such just might be mouthpiece shills for the oil industry.
Gunnair @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:16 am
Bodah Bodah:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Really. So complaining about how EVERY time I ask some anti-oil nut what their solution is for replacing oil and they don't answer but respond with how important the environment is and oil exploitation is killing it and us, is "attitude"?
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
They never have a realistic answer, they will however be the first to smuggly cross their arms and tell you, your solution is wrong though.
What would make their answer realistic? For vehicles, for example, I'd like to see much more work put into hydrogen as well as electricity. Both are realistic but of course, those who support oil will brush them aside because.....well they support oil.
Like asking a Liberal to vote Conservative, really.
ShepherdsDog @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:40 am
$1:
Like asking a Liberal to vote Conservative, really.
Must of happened. That's the only way Harper took Ontario.
saturn_656 @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:47 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
Bodah Bodah:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Really. So complaining about how EVERY time I ask some anti-oil nut what their solution is for replacing oil and they don't answer but respond with how important the environment is and oil exploitation is killing it and us, is "attitude"?
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
Sorry, but it's small minds that refuse to see the bigger picture who are the ones causing pipeline problems.
Like when I ask how running even MORE diesel trains loaded with tankers is LESS environmentally damaging than some piepline that will supposedly cause global warming merely by existing.
They never have a realistic answer, they will however be the first to smuggly cross their arms and tell you, your solution is wrong though.
What would make their answer realistic? For vehicles, for example, I'd like to see much more work put into hydrogen as well as electricity. Both are realistic but of course, those who support oil will brush them aside because.....well they support oil.
Like asking a Liberal to vote Conservative, really.
An electric powered car is great... Unless you feel like leaving your town/city. Batteries barely can carry enough of a charge to get me 100k up the hilly highway, nevermind getting back home. Inadequate. We need a quantum leap in battery technology for the electric car to be anything more than a fashion accessory for suburbanites and city dwellers.
Hydrogen has potential but there is no established infrastructure for distribution. Who will fund it? Fuel cell powered vehicles still cost a bleeding fortune, even more than the also overpriced electric cars.
Gunnair @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:06 am
saturn_656 saturn_656:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Bodah Bodah:
They never have a realistic answer, they will however be the first to smuggly cross their arms and tell you, your solution is wrong though.
What would make their answer realistic? For vehicles, for example, I'd like to see much more work put into hydrogen as well as electricity. Both are realistic but of course, those who support oil will brush them aside because.....well they support oil.
Like asking a Liberal to vote Conservative, really.
An electric powered car is great... Unless you feel like leaving your town/city. Batteries barely can carry enough of a charge to get me 100k up the hilly highway, nevermind getting back home. Inadequate. We need a quantum leap in battery technology for the electric car to be anything more than a fashion accessory for suburbanites and city dwellers.
Hydrogen has potential but there is no established infrastructure for distribution. Who will fund it? Fuel cell powered vehicles still cost a bleeding fortune, even more than the also overpriced electric cars.
Well of course there is no infrastructure. It often appears that when pro-pipeline/oil people ask for an alternative, the expectation is that someone will come up with a system that can replace it instantly.
Come now.
Agree with electric vehicles - they may get the nod for urban use, but they have limitations for long distance. Hydrogen I believe is an excellent alternative but it needs infrastructure. That needs to be examined and hard to determine the best approach to establish that infrastructure - both the initial supply and the distribution.
FieryVulpine @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:57 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
Small minds live on both sides of the fence.
Clearly, you have not looked at the issues with either Keystone or Northern Gateway when it comes to environmental concerns. Spills are the primary concern from the pipeline side with the concern, and with some justification if one looks at Enbridge's record. Look up the ongoing issues with the Kalamazoo. For Northern Gateway, it's tanker traffic in Douglas Channel in particular and the North Coast in general. Those who oppose pipelines based on those concerns are hardly eco-nuts, though it appears the small minds that label them as such just might be mouthpiece shills for the oil industry.
Clearly, you have not looked at the issues with either Keystone or Northern Gateway when it comes to environmental concerns. Spills are the primary concern from the pipeline side with the concern, and with some justification if one looks at Enbridge's record. Look up the ongoing issues with the Kalamazoo. For Northern Gateway, it's tanker traffic in Douglas Channel in particular and the North Coast in general. Those who oppose pipelines based on those concerns are hardly eco-nuts, though it appears the small minds that label them as such just might be mouthpiece shills for the oil industry.
Still, with the pipelines criss-crossing the continent, we would all be drenched in crude oil if spills like Kalamazoo were the norm. The reasoning strikes me as similar as refusing to drive a car because of statistics regarding traffic fatalities, or refusing to go to the bank of the off-chance that armed robbers will come a knocking.
Gunnair @ Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:00 am
FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Small minds live on both sides of the fence.
Clearly, you have not looked at the issues with either Keystone or Northern Gateway when it comes to environmental concerns. Spills are the primary concern from the pipeline side with the concern, and with some justification if one looks at Enbridge's record. Look up the ongoing issues with the Kalamazoo. For Northern Gateway, it's tanker traffic in Douglas Channel in particular and the North Coast in general. Those who oppose pipelines based on those concerns are hardly eco-nuts, though it appears the small minds that label them as such just might be mouthpiece shills for the oil industry.
Clearly, you have not looked at the issues with either Keystone or Northern Gateway when it comes to environmental concerns. Spills are the primary concern from the pipeline side with the concern, and with some justification if one looks at Enbridge's record. Look up the ongoing issues with the Kalamazoo. For Northern Gateway, it's tanker traffic in Douglas Channel in particular and the North Coast in general. Those who oppose pipelines based on those concerns are hardly eco-nuts, though it appears the small minds that label them as such just might be mouthpiece shills for the oil industry.
Still, with the pipelines criss-crossing the continent, we would all be drenched in crude oil if spills like Kalamazoo were the norm.
True, it is not the norm. But when it goes south, it goes very very far south.