Did I hear an echo?Oh what a great link! I can get Free Energy tour dates and upload their latest single on my iPOD.
Oh goodie! I would like to hear about them!
Climate Change - Coal the bad guy -Not oil or conventional gas.
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Only if you ignore climate science and pay attention to politicians and people into junk science..
And ignorant people do? lol
Yep. That's where most of the spin comes from.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/22/media-coverage-of-oilsands-prompts-scientists-rebuke/
Damn. I can't find the study itself.
Last edited:
Motor Mouth: Electric cars have dirty little secret | Driving | National Post
Unlike the tax credit, which ends after the automaker sells the first 200,000 alternatively fuelled vehicles, the proposed increase has no such limits, the credit diminishing after 2016, presumably after meeting President Obama’s ambitious target of “putting one million advanced-technology vehicles on the road by 2015.”
Of course, with 17,345 Chevrolet Volts and Nissan Leafs sold in the United States last year, it’s little wonder the administration is a tad concerned. A skeptic might even go so far as to postulate that Americans seem a little reluctant to embrace the liberal left’s electrified future.
There might be even worse news on the EV front. A University of Tennessee study recently concluded that electric vehicles in China might emit more pollution than gasoline-powered cars. Its conclusion is that, because 75% of Chinese electric power is coal fuelled, an EV operating in China is actually more harmful to the environment than a conventional gas-fuelled automobile. The study was conducted in 34 different cities. It measured everything from dust and metals to the acids produced during the coal-fired electricity production process.
Of course, there are numerous other studies showing that, even in China, electric vehicles are cleaner and greener than the gasoline-fuelled variety. Nonetheless, it points to a great failing in the great pollution debate, namely that the world’s two greatest polluters — the one with the most cars and the other selling more cars per year than any other country (that would be the U.S. and China, in case you haven’t been paying attention) — both get the preponderance of their energy from the dirtiest of sources.
According to the Canadian Press, another study by one of the world’s top climate scientists — Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria — found that coal is a far greater threat to our planet than burning fossil fuels. Weaver estimates that burning all the commercially available oil from the Alberta Tar Sands would only emit enough carbon dioxide to raise global temperatures by 0.03C, but he adds that firing all the coal still readily accessible in the world would increase the temperature by a disastrous 15C. Yet, there is no public outrage against coal, no groundswell of protest against carbonized plant matter. Moviegoers are not flocking to documentaries lamenting the evils of coal-fed electrical plants
The Canadian Press was wrong. That's not what Weaver says.
Comparing the emissions from the ALBERTA tar sands to the emissions from the WORLD's supply of coal? WTF? That's a bit like comparing my truck's emissions to those of the entire province of BC's emissions.
Did they come up with electric motors that don't use copper windings yet?
Copper mining makes the oil sands look graceful and delicate.
Copper mining makes the oil sands look graceful and delicate.
Last edited:
He was comparing GG emissions - Oil including the Oil Sands is cleaner - does not detract from the effect it has on the environment.
Unconventional gas is also dirtier than oil according to Weaver.
Est run up to the 2 hundred billion barrels. Hell of a lot more than that in the area.
People think about Elec cars - add up the energy required for the batteries - the rare metals each uses - very expensive.
Do we have to do better yes.
Athabasca oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Together, these oil sand deposits lie under 141,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi) of sparsely populated boreal forest and muskeg (peat bogs) and contain about 1.7 trillion barrels (270×10^9 m3) of bitumen in-place, comparable in magnitude to the world's total proven reserves of conventional petroleum. Although the former CEO of Shell Canada, Clive Mather, estimated Canada's reserves to be 2 trillion barrels (320 km3) or more, the International Energy Agency (IEA) lists Canada's reserves as being 178 billion barrels (2.83×1010 m3).[5]
At least my blender will be green. You can make margaritas while cruising in your elec car and feel good about yourself?
Got to have some humor. i think it is great that new tech is coming online.
Now add in the BRIC's and how many cars are going to come on the market in the next 10 to 20 years as there standard of living increases.
I'm going to post this again since it appears the effect was lost and some people are suffering from amnesia..
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
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
... and the cost of the quality of life decreasing. Good project.
They didn't read the one I posted either, apparently.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/22/m...ntists-rebuke/
Is that you realizing you posted an article about a motor that still has copper windings?