Oil Unions: Cut Keystone Pipeline
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
So what your saying is, by using CCS to limit the emissions of the sands themselves, we would actively increase the emissions of the coal related side of using CCS..
Sounds like a slightly no-win situation. : /
Both of which are limited resources...
Bah.. this makes my head hurt.
Sounds like a slightly no-win situation. : /
Both of which are limited resources...
Bah.. this makes my head hurt.
Last edited:
Nope coal emission drop heavily. Just one CCS reduces emissions equivelant to 250,000 vehciles. When SK does all the boilers we'll sequester enough to equal 3.5 million vehicles on top of the household emission that are already covered by recycling.
There are no emissions if they are sequestered.
Think of it this way. Carbon capture is a patch that maintains our dependency on non-renewable resources. It's good for the short-term buck because you can - like petros says - mitigate some of the carbon that has been created and continue to fuel industry.
The problem, in addition to the obvious, unfortunate side effect is that it inadvertently rewards the oil industry. Instead of taking the $$$ hit, we're letting it continue like a junkie that needs his fix. If we continue to fund projects like these, we sway away from investments in renewable alternatives. The longer we wait to make our switch to renewable resources, the worse it is for us environmentally and economically.
The only solution - if you really care about the environment - is one where we need to invest money now.
We can try these bandaid solutions, but like the nicotine patch, it only really works if you put it over your mouth.
Last edited:
Ahh, okay.
Regarding the investment aspect, as far as I know, most companies who would be able to do it, have interests elsewhere, such as auto manufacture or have investments in oil stocks, so they more often then not find it isnt in their interests to help find a renewable source no?
And that is why there is major investment into wind generation in SK. Anyone can set up a wind generating system and pipe the excess into the grid. $20K will set up a farmer with personal energy needs and the srplus going into the grid. It's catching on like wildfire.
NIMBYs are a non-issue here.
NIMBYs are a non-issue here.
Correct.
This is precisely why we could all be driving perfectly viable electric cars today, but we don't. If you look at Ontario as an example - we have a lot of expenditures and investments into these programs. It's partly the reason why the province has a deficit, and why there is a huge uproar amongst conservatives.
Unfortunately, most of these same people don't look far enough into the future and don't realize it is a necessary expense.
And, it's also because a lot of people (on both sides of the political spectrum) are pretty greedy these days.
When the hell are the rest of you going to catch up?
Where does the electricty to run the electric car come from?
Glad to hear, but that still doesnt give the projects the funding to actively research and or establish a steadily renewable energy source.
Not that the auto sector would really make eco friendly vehicles, namely due to cost, like the smartcar.
Im just trying to imagine the land required for a wind field large enough to power somewhere like say.... Toronto?
All the materials to make a vehicle are extremely energy intense. Copper to make windings for electric motors is by far dirtier than oil.
xD True enough.
In that case, let's take a leaf out of Japans book and ride bicycles, save the eco friendly vehicles for freight? or mass transport, example monorails?
PS: Sorry, I tend to drift off topic sometimes <_<;
That would be great if everyone in Canada lived on a tiny island in super population dense cities and we didn't have winter.
Here is a fact few know. All the steel used in the XL pipeline is 100 % recycled and made using clean hydro.
Hahahaha, yeah.
Well, the bottom line is whether or not to axe the pipeline.
The pros and cons might outweigh eachother, but the final decision has yet to be made.
I personally would hate being stuck with such a controversial choice >_>
But in the end I'll stick with my stance on this.
The oil wont be around forever, and it would be superb if the people who ran our country /the world leaders had a plan in place for such an event, not to mention the willingness to put money into it.
Last edited:
Without the energy from the oil there would be no energy to make wind gennys or solar panels and solar water heater. The transition is going to take time and isn't going to happen overnight.
If I was an eco-nut I'd probably take that as a slap, using recycled goods made with clean energy, to transport something whos byproduct could poison the surrounding areas XD
I have the same view.
Here's a good infographic on current energy use in Ontario (i think durkadurka posted already):
We might need to use nuclear power as a short term buffer, but I would hope that's not necessary either.
The thing is it can't poison surrounding areas being 20ft underground with crops growing over it. This line is the most advanced man has ever concieved. have you stopped eating food because the surface water is already polluted by nitrates?
Agreed, I'd be quite pleased if I knew they were doing something constructive with it, instead of just burning it in cars for thae majority.
And yes I know it's being used in so many other applications, hence why I picked the one that frustrates me the most.