Climate Change - Coal the bad guy -Not oil or conventional gas.
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
That's the common practice and has been in the USA for a long time... The problem comes when the coal runs-out, the transmission distances get too large or the price of the commodity (with a view to operating costs of the mine) is cheaper to source elsewhere.
Bear in mind that this view is very long term, but this has become an issue for some American electricity producers just recently.
We won't be running out of coal in SK for another 1000 years.
Coal can be piped as slurry which is cheaper and more efficient than trains.
Coal will be burned world wide for a long long time to come.
Coal can be piped as slurry which is cheaper and more efficient than trains.
Coal will be burned world wide for a long long time to come.
As usual, any time there is this much calamity about some 'climate scandal', it gets beaten down after a few days once there are clarifications.
I thought people would be used to this by now, but you guys are gluttons for punishment.
Point missed on oilsands report, say researchers
Team calls for rapid transition to renewable energy
Two Canadian climate change scientists from the University of Victoria say the public reaction to their recently published commentary has missed their key message: that all forms of fossil fuels, including the oilsands and coal, must be regulated for the world to avoid dangerous global warming.
"Much of the way this has been reported is (through) a type of view that oilsands are good and coal is bad," said climate scientist Neil Swart, who co-wrote the study with fellow climatologist Andrew Weaver. "From my perspective, that was not the point. . . . The point here is, we need a rapid transition to renewable (energy), and avoid committing to long-term fossil fuel use if we are to get within the limits" of reducing global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
The commentary, published in the British scientific journal Nature Climate Change, estimated the effect of consuming the fuel from oilsands deposits - without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and production - would be far less harmful to the planet's atmosphere than consuming all of the world's coal resources.
"The conclusions of a credible climate scientist with access to good data are very different than some of the rhetoric we've heard from Hollywood celebrities of late," said Travis Davies, a spokesman from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
"However, it clearly doesn't absolve industry from what it needs to do: (To) continue to improve environmental performance broadly, and demonstrate that improvement to Canadians and our customers . . . in terms of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, as well as water, land and tailings facilities."
Swart and Weaver also note that growth in oilsands and recent debates over a major pipeline expansion project in the United States represent a symptom of the planet's unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. The commentary said policy-makers in North America and Europe must avoid major infrastructure of this nature since it is pushing the planet dangerously close to more than 2 C of average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be a threshold of dramatic changes in global ecosystems.
Swart also said their estimates revealed that the relative impact of the oilsands on the climate, per unit of production, would push the average Canadian to 75 per cent of what would be considered their maximum allowable carbon dioxide footprint for an entire lifetime.
In other words, this would mean that after factoring in oilsands emissions, the average Canadian would not have much room left to consume fossil fuels for their other energy needs if he or she wanted to do their fair share of reductions when compared with citizens from other countries, Swart explained.
"If we go down this path, the amount of warming will be massive," Swart said.
Governments from around the world have agreed that scientific evidence shows that humans are causing global warming through land-use changes and the burning of fossil fuels, but that it is possible to avoid dangerous impacts of climate change by dramatically cutting levels of greenhouse gas emissions that are trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Point missed on oilsands report, say researchers
I thought people would be used to this by now, but you guys are gluttons for punishment.
Point missed on oilsands report, say researchers
Team calls for rapid transition to renewable energy
Two Canadian climate change scientists from the University of Victoria say the public reaction to their recently published commentary has missed their key message: that all forms of fossil fuels, including the oilsands and coal, must be regulated for the world to avoid dangerous global warming.
"Much of the way this has been reported is (through) a type of view that oilsands are good and coal is bad," said climate scientist Neil Swart, who co-wrote the study with fellow climatologist Andrew Weaver. "From my perspective, that was not the point. . . . The point here is, we need a rapid transition to renewable (energy), and avoid committing to long-term fossil fuel use if we are to get within the limits" of reducing global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
The commentary, published in the British scientific journal Nature Climate Change, estimated the effect of consuming the fuel from oilsands deposits - without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and production - would be far less harmful to the planet's atmosphere than consuming all of the world's coal resources.
"The conclusions of a credible climate scientist with access to good data are very different than some of the rhetoric we've heard from Hollywood celebrities of late," said Travis Davies, a spokesman from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
"However, it clearly doesn't absolve industry from what it needs to do: (To) continue to improve environmental performance broadly, and demonstrate that improvement to Canadians and our customers . . . in terms of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, as well as water, land and tailings facilities."
Swart and Weaver also note that growth in oilsands and recent debates over a major pipeline expansion project in the United States represent a symptom of the planet's unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. The commentary said policy-makers in North America and Europe must avoid major infrastructure of this nature since it is pushing the planet dangerously close to more than 2 C of average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be a threshold of dramatic changes in global ecosystems.
Swart also said their estimates revealed that the relative impact of the oilsands on the climate, per unit of production, would push the average Canadian to 75 per cent of what would be considered their maximum allowable carbon dioxide footprint for an entire lifetime.
In other words, this would mean that after factoring in oilsands emissions, the average Canadian would not have much room left to consume fossil fuels for their other energy needs if he or she wanted to do their fair share of reductions when compared with citizens from other countries, Swart explained.
"If we go down this path, the amount of warming will be massive," Swart said.
Governments from around the world have agreed that scientific evidence shows that humans are causing global warming through land-use changes and the burning of fossil fuels, but that it is possible to avoid dangerous impacts of climate change by dramatically cutting levels of greenhouse gas emissions that are trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Point missed on oilsands report, say researchers
Last edited:
Let me see now. They were wrong about oil sands - Study shows they were wrong- In their report, surprised about their own perception of the Oil Sands was wrong - Now that is real Science.Perception based upon what??????????? Eco Pressure - Everyone has an agenda.
I guess their Oil Sands thinking which was shown to be wrong was based upon perception and others reports
( At that time prior to the study they thought they were right about the oil sands until after they studied it) - Though - Impression - I see hard science at work.
Now they come out and state we missed the point and Bad Oil sands.
Guess the Eco Squads had one tough talk with these fellas.
Let us say Canada - Germany comparable on sunlight etc - Are you willing to have your electricity bill increase 400 % - Now we then bring in industry that would be unable to compete in many sectors. Lots of unemployed people.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/02/21/bjorn-lomborg-germanys-solar-experiment-collapses/
Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion,” doling out generous subsidies — totalling more than US$130-billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University — to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s Minister of Economics and Technology, has called the spiralling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”
Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometres, about 2.6% of the Sahara Desert.
In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. When the sun failed to shine last winter, one emergency back-up plan powered up an Austrian oil-fired plant to fill the supply gap.
Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3% of Germany’s total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world wind-energy champion”).
Last edited:
Read the below comments i made. Also solar power. Guess what the cost is in Spain - approx 25 Billion so far.
Then power lines etc to transfer this wind /solar power as it is DC not AC as is presently in use.
Oh yes... that is the hidden gem of alternative energy. High costs. Many think that solar and wind power are free and should be cheaper. The sources are free (sunlight-wind) but to convert it to usable power... VERY EXPENSIVE. Expenses that will be passed down to consumers.
I also asked some pertinent questions, still waiting. Take your time as i am going for a mid morning nap, or you could call it a pre afternoon nap, or a late morning nap. Not sure though so please help me in determine which of the 3 would be correct?:smile:
Smart man Goobs... Napping is much like stretching before exercise, you have to ease into it.
BTW - I wouldn't be holding my breath on waiting for a response, unless you were hoping for an outright deflection.
Let us say Canada - Germany comparable on sunlight etc - Are you willing to have your electricity bill increase 400 % - Now we then bring in industry that would be unable to compete in many sectors. Lots of unemployed people.
Is this not pertinent?