Climate Change - Coal the bad guy -Not oil or conventional gas.

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
... 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/

I am not a Climate Change denier. I do understand that Govts will not cause massive change that alters / lowers their citizens standard of living. Same with the BRIC's - They are the new economies that are growing fast. Along with that comes expectations when income increases. This along with the era of cheap food is over. As they have more disposable income, they alter thir eating habits. Hence a rise in prices - using food stuffs such as corn as Bio Fuels is idiotic.

I opened your link but could not find the article.
All of these are facts.
Do I like it, no, but it is the reality.

Shxt they are all fishing the oceans out and what have we seen over the past 30 years on cutbacks - sweet diddly is all we have seen
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,469
14,317
113
Low Earth Orbit
Reduced is vague.

If all copper mining stopped today the supply available including recycling is only 7 days.

If the next 10 years were dedicated to electric motors to replace the hundreds of millions of gasoline engines in North American vehicle how big of a jump in copper production would be needed to meet the demand even if the windings were reduced by 50%?

How many "oils sands sized" copper mines will it take to pull it off?





How Much Copper Is Used In A Wind Farm?

In 2006, CDA asked Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) to evaluate the use of copper in renewable energy sources. ORNL conducted an analysis on the Buffalo Mountain Wind Farm run by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and developed the following information.

The Buffalo Mountain Wind Farm has two types of turbines, Vestas Model V47 and Vestas Model V80. For the Vesta V47, a 660-kW turbine, the windings in the system total approximately 800 lb of copper. There are three of these turbines. Three 2/0 cables each 270 ft long connect the generator at the top of the tower to the controller below. Approximately 100 lb of copper busing are located at the base. In addition, the control cabinet contains about 300 lb of various small gauge wires. Each tower has a grounding system that consists of a 1/0 copper cable that runs the length of the tower. Several circular rings of this cable surround the tower. The base of the tower is about 39 ft. Three 20 ft long copper grounding rods, about 1/2” in diameter are associated with each tower.

There are 15 V80 turbines rated at 1.8 MW each. The cable connection is 4/0. The transfer cabinet contains about 15 lb of copper. From the transfer cabinet, either 2/0 or 3/0 cable conveys the energy underground to a switch yard or collection point. From there, aluminum overhead transmission cable distributes the energy away from the farm.

Obviously, the outstanding conductivity and durability of copper help make wind energy generation efficient and reliable. As the U.S. begins to focus more attention on renewable energy sources, copper will play an important role.

http://www.copper.org/environment/green/casestudies/wind_energy/wind_energy.html

P.S....just think of what the rare earth mines will do to the Athabasca Lake? Do you think it will be better or worse than the oilsands of present or good old Eldorado Nuclear of the past?

Great Western Minerals Group Ltd. Hoidas Lake, Saskatchewan

We'll gladly cut down and pollute thousands of sq km of SK boreal for uranium, copper and rare earth element mines for electric cars and wind turbines.

Go Green!!! Buy in today!
 
Last edited:

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
The special interest groups always amuse me alot when it comes to blame. Coal blames
gas and gas blames coal. They also come up with slick promotional ads showing the gas
companies leaving behind beautiful vistas after they are finished getting the gas out. The
only thing they don't show you is the mess underground where they poisoned the aquifer
and destroyed the environment from below.
There there is the biggest line of bull Clean Coal what a joke that is making people believe
there is such a thing. Its all words and finger pointing. I am not a rabid environmentalist
but I do believe we should not pollute the atmosphere anymore than we have to.
It must be understood, if we are going to have a functioning society we must accept a level
of risk and understand there will be damage. How much damage is the question here and
it must be determined how that is going to be managed. All they are going to do is exchange
words that mean nothing.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
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.

But But But it's for your own good. Also any carbon credits you may pick up along the way are good for Al. Gore's bank account.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
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
Do they have shares in a wind or solar manufacturer?

Work will set you free...

Only cash jobs. Otherwise the taxman bites.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I am not a Climate Change denier. I do understand that Govts will not cause massive change that alters / lowers their citizens standard of living. Same with the BRIC's - They are the new economies that are growing fast. Along with that comes expectations when income increases. This along with the era of cheap food is over. As they have more disposable income, they alter thir eating habits. Hence a rise in prices - using food stuffs such as corn as Bio Fuels is idiotic.

I opened your link but could not find the article.
All of these are facts.
Do I like it, no, but it is the reality.

Shxt they are all fishing the oceans out and what have we seen over the past 30 years on cutbacks - sweet diddly is all we have seen
Damn link did the same to me, too. So I just typed "Media coverage of oilsands prompts scientists' rebuke" into google search. It's the first entry.

Anyway, it's a delicate balance between acting responsibly towards our world and not messing up economies while doing so.

Reduced is vague.
So? It's still a step in the right direction.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Damn link did the same to me, too. So I just typed "Media coverage of oilsands prompts scientists' rebuke" into google search. It's the first entry.

Anyway, it's a delicate balance between acting responsibly towards our world and not messing up economies while doing so.

So? It's still a step in the right direction.

The oceans have absorbed so much GG that they are at a tipping for survival of a number of species. If we pass that tipping point the last time it occurred it took millions of years for the diversity to return.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Yup. It's already past the tipping point for many species.

The article I had read stated the GG had increased millions of years ago, over a period of a max of 10 k years. It took millions of years for the oceans to balance out. Once the species is gone. Thats it.
We cannot even agree on over fishing so carbon is not going to fly in my opinion.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Out of curiosity, compared to 2 miles of ice-cap and death or some carbon emissions to 'carve out a city in the ice' and life which would you choose?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Eating shrooms ain't gonna help Cliffy.
I don't think that is what he was getting at. Do we continue down this path of materialist, capitalist insanity and trash the planet completely or do we branch off in a completely new direction? We have become separated from our connection to the source of our life, we are exploiting it and ourselves into oblivion in the vain attempt to fill the hole at the center of our being that this separation has created. We need a quantum paradigm shift and we need it now, not tomorrow.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,469
14,317
113
Low Earth Orbit
I don't think that is what he was getting at. Do we continue down this path of materialist, capitalist insanity and trash the planet completely or do we branch off in a completely new direction? We have become separated from our connection to the source of our life, we are exploiting it and ourselves into oblivion in the vain attempt to fill the hole at the center of our being that this separation has created. We need a quantum paradigm shift and we need it now, not tomorrow.
Materialism is fine if the mater is in balance with the pater. The Earth is the mater so if you did dedicate yourself to the Earth you are being materialistic. When the world finds it's place between the mater and the pater all will be good but that's not going to happen until everyone accepts the pater.