Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
This isn't a question of choosing either one of the dirtiest forms of fossil fuels as Tonnington is trying to say, we already know it's time to start phasing out all forms of fossil fuels and replacing them with carbon neutral, low impact forms of energy production in concert with much more efficient use of power and resources.
Claiming that the oil sands are somehow not as harmful as other sources of fossils fuels is like a long time heroin addict after being told by his physician that his habit is about to kill him decides it's time to start taking crystal meth, "Things are already bad, how much worse can adding to the problem be".
The warnings provided by the most consistent evidence indicate we need to start phasing out all source of fossil fuels, not increase our dependence. Instead we're going in the other direction and are being told it's no big deal. The situtation was already a big deal and it's about to become much worse if we allow our government to work against our interests.
The oil sands already produce close to half of Canada's petroleum and in the next couple of decades are projected to supply the bulk of our crude. At 3-4 times the CO2 emitted compared to conventional oil that means already tar sands oil is responsible for between 150-200% more CO2 than all other conventional oil from Canada. By 2020 oil sands production is slated to be about 3 million barrels a day giving it the same or greater carbon footprint as the Saudi oil fields, by 2030 daily production if allowed to continue will be about 5 million barrels probably making it the greatest single source of CO2 emitted by people anywhere on the globe.
If we don't give a crap about the future as a nation and really are almost solely focused on feeding our fossil fuel addiction then we're going about things the right way by allowing the fossil fuel sector free reign with our political system.
Claiming that the oil sands are somehow not as harmful as other sources of fossils fuels is like a long time heroin addict after being told by his physician that his habit is about to kill him decides it's time to start taking crystal meth, "Things are already bad, how much worse can adding to the problem be".
The warnings provided by the most consistent evidence indicate we need to start phasing out all source of fossil fuels, not increase our dependence. Instead we're going in the other direction and are being told it's no big deal. The situtation was already a big deal and it's about to become much worse if we allow our government to work against our interests.
The oil sands already produce close to half of Canada's petroleum and in the next couple of decades are projected to supply the bulk of our crude. At 3-4 times the CO2 emitted compared to conventional oil that means already tar sands oil is responsible for between 150-200% more CO2 than all other conventional oil from Canada. By 2020 oil sands production is slated to be about 3 million barrels a day giving it the same or greater carbon footprint as the Saudi oil fields, by 2030 daily production if allowed to continue will be about 5 million barrels probably making it the greatest single source of CO2 emitted by people anywhere on the globe.
If we don't give a crap about the future as a nation and really are almost solely focused on feeding our fossil fuel addiction then we're going about things the right way by allowing the fossil fuel sector free reign with our political system.
This isn't the 19th century.
There's:
- Biofuels- Right now the city of edmonton is implementing a program that will turn most of our garbage into fuel.
Waste-to-Biofuels Facility :: City of Edmonton
- Solar: There's a huge fussion reactor about 90 million miles away that provides virtually limitless energy.
- Geothermal: Water heated by magma can be used for a lot more than just soaking our bones.
- Catalytic/heat/pressure processes that replicate the natural conversion of long chain hydrocarbon molecules into short chain products equal to light crude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
- Wind/tidal
- There's even devices that allow people to power their electronic equipment through the regular movement of their bodies.
The possibilities are virtually limitless when you give up the delusions of fossil based fuel dependency.
There are also many ways to more efficiently use both power and resources so we simply don't need to take as much from the world around us.
Bio-fuels? You silly idealogues want to starve people eh? Screw that.
Geo thermal? Gee that's poking holes through aquifers. What if the fluids leak? One geo-thermal home could do as much damage as a 36" inch pipeline.
Geo thermal? Gee that's poking holes through aquifers. What if the fluids leak? One geo-thermal home could do as much damage as a 36" inch pipeline.
Don't know about you but I don't tend to eat garbage, I'm guessing you didn't even read the article I linked to.
There's more than enough bio-materials that are now classified as waste and can be used for biofuels that we simply don't need to use and definitely should not convert valuable farmland to produce fuels.
As for thermal deploymerization I guess if you're into eating, old tires, wood chips and human **** then go ahead and protest it's use.
Silly indeed.
And heat pumps that only last 4-5 years
So to meet ever increasing fuel needs we'd have to make more garbage? Good idea.
We already have a "green" law that says fuel has to be 10% food.
What a ****ed "green" idea that turned out to be. Once the grains ae fermented for alcohol it goes to feed cattle which fart all the reminaning hydrocarbons from the feed.
Nature already does it, and the fluids used are water.
The negative impacts of sustainable energy production don't even come close to those we've already assimilated into our lives with fossil fuels but the crack- fossil fuel addicts will create any reason to avoid going off the stuff appatently.
Changing the topic to heat pumps also diverts the discussion away from the oil sands...funny how that keeps happening here.
Now you're just being obtuse.
The project uses the garbage that we already produce in huge amounts every year and that would otherwise end up in landfills, next your going to be championing those.
And now you're being dishonest, the law doesn't say anything of the kind about food.
Whatever, not going down this road to la-la land with you.
Why spend billions on developing the oil sands while seriously polluting the planet when we can invest on things like Getothermal Power Plants that can provide almost limitless energy on their own.
Geothermal Technologies Program: How a Geothermal Power Plant Works (Simple)
As for the ground water you were so concerned about, go drink or swim in the Athabasca River down-stream of the oil sands project if you think it's such a wonderful and safe idea.
How much steam is released into the atmosphere in geothermal power generation to become water vapour - another of those greenhouse gasses?
But other forms of electric generation already release steam but geothermal would not release the other forms of pollutants. I would prefer electro-magnetic engines to produce power.
Magnetic Generator To Power Your Home - YouTube
no reason that this could not be used to produce electricity:
Electric Car Without Battery, make VIRAL ! (Oil replacement solution) Magnetic Motor - YouTube
There are any number of vegetation materials that can be used to create biofuels - even if biofuels were the only way to go. In North America, switchgrass is plentiful; can be grown on land that is not used for productive agricultural purposes, and is not food.
None!
Water vapour does not stay in the atmosphere without a temperature increase that is induced by carbons.
None!
Water vapour does not stay in the atmosphere without a temperature increase that is induced by carbons.
I don't live anywhere near active formations and neither do you. Useless.