Smog Kills - REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE

[Karlin]

Our political leaders have not looked at how much Kyoto will save us in health care spending and lives saved.
These 800 deaths in Toronto alone should spark some compassionate political moves to reduce smog.

For all the major cities in North America , each having 1000 deaths each year from smog, the total is TEN TIMES the number killed in the WTC debacle that is the basis for invading sovereign nations, killing an estimated 200,000 Iraqi innocents, and costing America's economy so dearly. Thats just to point out that things are not what they seem, there is motivations behind rejecting Kyoto and the WTC and Iraq that are the same, that as a race we are killing ourselves so a few Elites can have more oil wealth. Thats whats behind it, I believe, and many share this view.

At this time of oil shortage and high gasoline prices, we still can't find a politician that will address the obvious problem and solution
- REDUCE OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.

Reducing our use of fossil fuels would obviously help Canadians financially and for our health. Yet, not one Kyoto statement has ever said that, instead, they talk of efficiencies [which is a good thing, btw] and other ways to CONTINUE using fossil fuels.

Conspiracy? Ya, who would doubt it when we see what a high price we are paying to continue the Oil Supported Economy of the Elites.
So, best of all, reducing fossil fuels useage would take the power right out of the hands of the barbarians now running the show.

links: Smog kills: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/06/smog050606.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/environment/smog.html

 

[AirIntake]

We would require fuel cell operated 4x4 work trucks in order to really reduce fossil fuel use in Canada. I work in the oil&gas industry and we burn litres and litres of gas ever day just getting to the sites that we need to. There are thousands of trucks like this and in more industries than just oil&gas. Small commuter cars and walking etc only help part of the problem.

 

[bluealberta]

We would require fuel cell operated 4x4 work trucks in order to really reduce fossil fuel use in Canada. I work in the oil&gas industry and we burn litres and litres of gas ever day just getting to the sites that we need to. There are thousands of trucks like this and in more industries than just oil&gas. Small commuter cars and walking etc only help part of the problem.

Two things.

First, this is a large, cold country with isolated pockets of population. The reality is that it takes a lot of fuel to heat and live in this country.

Second, it is not only the gas and oil industry that has a vested interest in using fossil fuel. Don't underestimate the amount of lobby efforts that are made by the auto industry whose interests are best served at this point by fossil fuel use.

There have been rumors for years that there are alternate energy and fuel sources available, but have been "hidden" due to all the policital lobbies on both sides of the border in Canada and the US. The pressure has to be put on these lobbies to get new energy sources.

And please, do not confuse Kyoto with pollution. They are different things altogether. Reducing CO2 will not eliminate pollution, so keep Kyoto out of the pollution discussions.

 

[Reverend Blair]

First, this is a large, cold country with isolated pockets of population. The reality is that it takes a lot of fuel to heat and live in this country.

Better building techniques and simple things like turning the off when you leave a room and wearing a sweater help massively with that. In the case of building techniques and products, there is also an economic spin-off.

Second, it is not only the gas and oil industry that has a vested interest in using fossil fuel. Don't underestimate the amount of lobby efforts that are made by the auto industry whose interests are best served at this point by fossil fuel use.

Nobody has said the auto industry deserves a free ride. They are, however slowly, moving towards the use of alternative fuels though. Contrast that with the oil and gas industry that routinely uses relatively clean natural gas to produce dirty oil.

And please, do not confuse Kyoto with pollution. They are different things altogether. Reducing CO2 will not eliminate pollution, so keep Kyoto out of the pollution discussions.

Kyoto is a city in Japan, nobody is confusing it with pollution. The CO2 is not pollution argument is, at its very heart, a lie. First of all CO2 is pollution...it's a greenhouse gas that causes global warming. Second of all, the sources of CO2 emissions are the same sources that release other pollutants, so by reducing one by conservation, you reduce the other as well.

 

[AirIntake]

CO2 isn't exactly pollution Rev. CO2 is required by all plants that utilise photosynthesis. Excessive CO2 could be considered pollution, but not the substance itself.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F

The CO2 that we release by burning fossil fuels is pollution. Maybe I should have been more clear, but since nobody is recommending that we all stop breathing I didn't think it was necessary.

 

[DasFX]

Our political leaders have not looked at how much Kyoto will save us in health care spending and lives saved.
These 800 deaths in Toronto alone should spark some compassionate political moves to reduce smog.

It would if the deaths happened at the same time also the pollution isn't killing them, it is leading to other ailment that kills them. Besides 800 deaths in Toronto is not very much compared to other killers like fast food, smoking, etc.

I see your point and agree with what you are saying, but no action will come from these findings. Unfortunately, it will take a many more deaths or a large group at once to have some action taken.

Just like in Iraq, a couple solders every week is no big deal, have an entire unit or infantry killed in one day and that would spark some action.

 

[AirIntake]

Walking, biking etc aren't exactly a solution in cold cold Canada. We need better vehicles that pollute less, but that are still capable, ie. more than just small hybrids. Until car companies offer me a fuel cell, 4 electric motor AWD sedan and 4x4 truck with some decent power I'm not biting. A Honda Insight, Toyota Prius or similar is the farthest thing from useful for me.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F

There is no single solution, AirIntake. Walking and biking are a partial solution, so are hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles, so is mass transit.

In your case, since you seem to require a 4 wheel drive truck, eco-diesel is a viable solution. It's made from vegetable matter, usually canola, so the product itself is greenhouse neutral. Since some pollution, including greenhouse gases, are released during the production of eco-diesel it is not the final answer, but it is something we could have in place within a couple of years.

It burns fine in conventional diesel motors and some tests even show it extending engine life and reducing maintenance since it burns cleaner.

Good luck buying it though. The oil industry owns most of the gas stations and tey aren't interested in distributing it. Without government legislation there is distribution system for it.

 

[AirIntake]

Eco-diesel cost more energy to produce than regular diesel does. This means that we burn more fuel (mostly fossil fuels) to produce it than we do to produce normal diesel. The same goes for ethanol, it is actually worse for the environment because of all of the extra energy required to make it. Unless the eco-diesel production facilities operate from solar energy or similar, the impact on the environment is actually worse. It just sounds better to environmentalists.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Unless the eco-diesel production facilities operate from solar energy or similar, the impact on the environment is actually worse. It just sounds better to environmentalists.

Another fallacy. Production facilities can be placed in areas where electricity is produced by windpower, hydro, solar etc. The energy used in production is also not the same as the energy released when the end product is used.

Also, since you brought ethanol into it, some Canadians invented an enzyme that allows the efficient fermentation of straw and corn stalks...the waste products from food crops. Since the waste can be used it saves the energy and pollution usually associated with getting rid of that waste. The left over sludge can be used as fertilizer and/or livestock feed, further reducing waste of both product and energy.

 

[AirIntake]

You will probably find that there's just not enough wind, hydo, and solar power facilities to produce the volumes of bio-diesel required. Ultimately, fossil fuels will be used to produce it. The energy used in production might as well be the same. It pollutes the same way, just in a different location.

And for the ethanol, where does the energy come from to produce the enzyme? And to run the fermentation facilities? Sorry, these quick fixes are just too good to be true. We need to completely rethink where we get all of our energy from, not just the gas for our cars.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F

The facilities can be developed though, AirIntake. Consider this...a plant that produces its own power through wind power. Why not? The product grows on prairies, we need economic diversification, and we have plenty of wind. A self-powered plant would save money anyway.

Manitoba sells power into the US market from hydro. We have more than we can use. Quebec and BC do the same. All three provinces can build more hydro facilities.

This also comes into play with hydrogen production.

The enzyme itself is self-replicating, as I understand it. It is basically a yeast.

You seem to be looking for a magic bullet...a single source that will replace all fossil fuels without a ripple. There isn't one and saying that nothing can be done because of the lack of that magic bullet becomes nothing but an excuse to do nothing.

 

[AirIntake]

It's not very practical to use wind power for generating large amounts of energy. One requires far too many turbines (at 1.5MW per turbine) to equal a gas generator (500MW+) not to mention the huge maintenence costs associated with having thousands of turbines spread out over the land. This many turbines would also have a huge environmental impact, as they would take up quite a lot of space. Wind power is hardly reliable either, so back up generation would be required anyway.

 

[Karlin]

One aspect about the Hydrogen idea is this:
- we now have millions of small engines in vehicles burning gasoline , and these small engines are inefficient at using up the available energy in the fuel but mostly this inefficency means we are polluting more that we have to.

If we see Hydrogen as "storage" and not as a fuel per se, then it would be much more efficient to burn the oil used to make gasoline, or even the gasoline itself, in large , very efficent engines that convert it to hydrogen, and then burn that in the small engines...[one or two steps omitted , but you get the picture]

Even if the efficiency of the hydrogen burning small engine in the vehicle is no better than with gasoline in using the available energy, it is at least clean.
The pollution is much more treatable , recoverable, in the larger centralised process, thats partly what contributes to the efficiency there.

Also, if we used the natural gas to make hydrogen , esp the natural gas that will go to making crude oil out of the TAR SANDS, [an incredably huge amount of nat gas], if we used that gas to make hydrogen, we would be much further ahead in using our fossil fuels. The idea is to get as much use from them as possible, instead of just burning them willy nilly and then finding ourselves with none left in the future.

The reason they make crude from tar sands-natural gas is that crude is getting such a high price. No matter than there are much more efficient ways to make our energy resources last longer, they want to deal in crude oil because thats the way the ecoomics work out best for them. If they burned the nat gas instead, they would get about three times as much mileage from it. But no, they want to refine the crude into gasoline because refining is so profitable now. And our own governmental regulations made that they way it is, with rebates on royalties etc.

This is all another reason to REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE - they refuse to do it right, so shut them out because we are all suffering from high prices and pollution. Government is best when it does the things that help all citizens... but instead we have given power to industry-friendly minions of the Elites who are only interested inserving themselves and their masters

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F

Well put, Karlin.

All fuels and methods of energy "production" are really just storage systems though. Our energy...oil, wind, hydro, whatever...comes from the sun and no place else. Oil is also just a storage system.

Another point about using large facilities to burn fossil fuels is that emissions can then be captured and buried. We already have the technology for zero-emissions (into the atmosphere) oil burning energy plants, we just don't use it.

Burning oil is really stupid in the long-term. We make everything from oil, so burning it to provide energy for transportation, heating, etc. is actually a waste of a hugely valuable resource.

 

[AirIntake]

Let's not forget nuclear power, which is still one of the best ways to produce electricity.

 

[bluealberta]

Let's not forget nuclear power, which is still one of the best ways to produce electricity.

I would like to see the nuclear option explored as well. Detractors always point to three mile island as a bad example, but what they forget is that the safety mechanisms worked exactly as they were supposed to. That was also a fairly long time ago, so technology has certainly improved from then. Nuclear has unlimited potential, in my opinion.

 

[AirIntake]

Nuclear has the lowest energy in vs energy out of any current power source. Minimizing Ein vs. Eout is actually what is best for the environment.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F

Except that you have to do something with the nuclear waste. It is not the danger of a meltdown that causes most to be opposed to it, it is the production of waste that we have no idea how to deal with.

Experiments on fusion technology, which produces no waste, are ongoing, as is the development of technologies that can deal with the waste from fission technology in a real and effective way. No solutions have yet been found though.