GasBuddy Blog

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics	Add to favorite topics

Author	Topic: The politics of emissions:Keystone is an easier target than U.S. coal-fired power plants	Post a Reply Back to Topics

Nicoalbum Champion Author Ottawa Posts:6,032 Points:1,190,975 Joined:Jan 2010	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:56:54 AM Ignore Nicoalbum Report Abuse Canada’s oil sands are one of the most carbon-intensive sources of crude in the world, and for American climate activists, the Keystone XL pipeline represents a “line in the sand” on climate policy. But greenhouse gas produced by the oil sands is a fraction of the amount spewed by U.S. coal-fired power plants. In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons. No wonder Canadian politicians challenge environmentalists who rally in Washington to stop the Keystone pipeline but are not chaining themselves to the White House fence to demand the shutdown of power stations. The Keystone XL battle can be won in the short term, compared to the long, hard slog that it would take to win reg Visit The Globe and Mail for full article

Nicoalbum

Champion Author
Ottawa

Posts:6,032
Points:1,190,975
Joined:Jan 2010

Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:56:54 AM

Ignore Nicoalbum Report Abuse

Canada’s oil sands are one of the most carbon-intensive sources of crude in the world, and for American climate activists, the Keystone XL pipeline represents a “line in the sand” on climate policy.

But greenhouse gas produced by the oil sands is a fraction of the amount spewed by U.S. coal-fired power plants. In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons.

No wonder Canadian politicians challenge environmentalists who rally in Washington to stop the Keystone pipeline but are not chaining themselves to the White House fence to demand the shutdown of power stations.

The Keystone XL battle can be won in the short term, compared to the long, hard slog that it would take to win reg
Visit The Globe and Mail for full article

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,953 Points:754,120 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 21, 2013 12:22:01 AM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse LOL, comparison is not illogical at all, it's energy. There have been proven strides in oil sands production. Take cogeneration and parafinnic froth treatment for examples. Developing these technologies shows the industry’s huge investments in research over the years. Innovation of private industry is key. The U.S. State Department has recognized these innovations in its evaluation of the Keystone XL stating "Oil sands mining projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions intensity by an average of 39 percent between 1990 and 2008 and are working toward further reductions,” this was the conclusion in the final Environmental Impact Statement. Once again Cakes, the truth shall set you free!!!!
LetemEatCake Champion Author Oklahoma City Posts:5,609 Points:1,207,330 Joined:Mar 2008	Message Posted: Feb 20, 2013 11:14:09 PM Ignore LetemEatCake Report Abuse Highdesertman's Comments bear repeating: "Comparing emissions for Keystone vs. our legacy coal-fired power plants is totally illogical. Clean air regulations for coal have been tightening down for years and coal now represents a much smaller component of total electrical generation than it did twenty or thirty years ago and will continue to decline. However, adding a new source of pollution is certainly not going to help matters any. It sounds like the Canadians (or at least this editorial writer) are grasping at straws to make their case for the pipeline." Well said!
TruthMatters Champion Author New Jersey Posts:2,525 Points:535,710 Joined:Oct 2011	Message Posted: Feb 19, 2013 2:55:24 PM Ignore TruthMatters Report Abuse Tree huggers aren't what they used to be!
2khawk Champion Author Iowa Posts:5,271 Points:929,975 Joined:Oct 2010	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:49:24 PM Ignore 2khawk Report Abuse Someone needs to target evironmentalists. Follow them around for a few days and you will figure out they really don't practice what they preach. They just like to push others around.
nsdp Champion Author San Antonio Posts:1,117 Points:47,340 Joined:Jun 2012	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:23:32 PM Ignore nsdp Report Abuse VomVom you need to complete your high school chemistry course. You are right on your calculation of CO2 on California crude as far as you went on making steam. But oils sands use heavy oil as boiler fuel. According to API data tha difference between NG is 55% of the carbon of heavy oil per mmbtu. So now multiply the 5 for California by .55=2.75 to get the actual mole ratio for CO2 content per barrel produced based on fuel used. Then there is all the carbon produced in transportation. California it is 120-150 miles from Bakersfield to the refineries, Ventura is less than 10 miles. Alberta to Texas is HOW many pipeline miles and how many megawatts per barrel to pump it? Most generation from ND to Texas is dirty old coal. You only solved half of the problem and then quit. [Edited by: nsdp at 2/18/2013 10:24:54 PM EST]
TXRammer Rookie Author Austin Posts:29 Points:6,880 Joined:Feb 2011	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 3:14:29 PM Ignore TXRammer Report Abuse Exactly what real benefit does this pipeline bring for the U.S.? I think most people know by now that the cost of oil is due to market manipulation, not supply. In my opinion, the missisippi river could be made of oil and prices still wouldn't come down. There is absolutely no incentive to lower gas prices when so much money is being made. You can liken it to an animal having it's first taste of blood. Now that it's tasted it, it wants more and more and will do anything to get it.
JoeKR Champion Author New Jersey Posts:9,483 Points:1,746,420 Joined:Feb 2006	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:23:10 PM Ignore JoeKR Report Abuse But coal use has existed for centuries and it only makes sense to prevent new pollution while working to slow the one's we already live with.
nerde Champion Author Florida Posts:6,430 Points:1,316,645 Joined:Jul 2009	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:14:36 PM Ignore nerde Report Abuse The Kochs get what they want from a government for sale.
kyjlh Champion Author Kentucky Posts:1,628 Points:654,455 Joined:Feb 2005	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:00:57 PM Ignore kyjlh Report Abuse Ok
highdesertman Champion Author Albuquerque Posts:2,489 Points:1,719,055 Joined:Mar 2005	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 1:46:12 PM Ignore highdesertman Report Abuse Comparing emissions for Keystone vs. our legacy coal-fired power plants is totally illogical. Clean air regulations for coal have been tightening down for years and coal now represents a much smaller component of total electrical generation than it did twenty or thirty years ago and will continue to decline. However, adding a new source of pollution is certainly not going to help matters any. It sounds like the Canadians (or at least this editorial writer) are grasping at straws to make their case for the pipeline.
Snowball2013 All-Star Author Yakima Posts:548 Points:119,000 Joined:Jan 2013	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 1:05:25 PM Ignore Snowball2013 Report Abuse Ok
evowner Champion Author Salem Posts:2,192 Points:361,210 Joined:May 2012	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:52:27 PM Ignore evowner Report Abuse What a choice, Keystone or coal. Both are projects sold on the promise and have in the past, delivered pollution. Why expect differently?
CVA19 Champion Author Salem Posts:2,393 Points:611,200 Joined:Aug 2011	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:12:38 PM Ignore CVA19 Report Abuse Good article... Thanks for posting! The premise of this article is one of the key reasons Obama will NOT approve the pipeline. The bone thrown to his eco-socialist buddies is more important to him than the biscuit thrown to his union-thug buddies.
humblepie Champion Author Toledo Posts:34,304 Points:2,373,320 Joined:Mar 2006	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:11:21 PM Ignore humblepie Report Abuse so much eco nonsense so few reasonable people
md11capt Champion Author Denver Posts:3,558 Points:711,630 Joined:Mar 2011	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:10:48 PM Ignore md11capt Report Abuse There's just one problem with this scenario: Coal will never be clean. It is possible to make coal emissions cleaner. In fact, we've come a long way since the '70s in finding ways to reduce sulfur--dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions, and more progress can be made. But the nut of the clean-coal sales pitch is that we can also bottle up the CO2 produced when coal is burned, most likely by burying it deep in the earth. That may be possible in theory, but it's devilishly difficult in practice. Read more: The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis - Popular Mechanics [L=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/4339171][/L]
VomVom Champion Author Calgary Posts:3,857 Points:1,627,080 Joined:May 2007	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:37:40 AM Ignore VomVom Report Abuse Canadian oil sands crude production emits less CO2 than the heavy oil production in California. The average steam oil ratio (SOR) of Canadian oil sands production is 3 and the average SOR of heavy oil production in California is 5. It takes more steam to produce Californian heavy oil and steam is generated by burning natural gas emitting CO2 (a GHG). Also, Canadian oil sands production operations are infinitely cleaner and produce less GHG compared to operations in Venezuela and Nigeria. The US is still a net importer of crude oil. If the US did not purchase Canadian crude, the US would have to import more crude from Venezuela and Nigeria. The net result is more GHG emissions. Canadian oil sands production accounts for 6.5% of Canada's total GHG emissions. And Canada's GHG is less than 2% of the world's total GHG. Even if one were to shut down all of Canada’s oil sands production, the net benefit to world GHG reduction would be less than 0.13%. So the claim by the liberal left wingnut eco-terrorists, that if the KXL were built it would be game over for planet earth, is just a lie. If they were serious about curbing GHG emission, they should protest to shut down all of the coal fired power generating stations in the US. Coal still accounts for 38% of the US power generating capacity. They should go protest in China which is the world’s biggest GHG emitter. They should go protest in Venezuela and Russia. Of course, they do not. So they are just a bunch of lying hypocrites.
Zuegma All-Star Author Nova Scotia Posts:998 Points:259,855 Joined:Aug 2012	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:34:50 AM Ignore Zuegma Report Abuse Coal can be upgraded to produce much cleaner energy. The North American grid system was structured on central power generation plants. It's a surer and faster bet to upgrade the coal plants and allow a few decades to make financially viable changes.
Nicoalbum Champion Author Ottawa Posts:6,032 Points:1,190,975 Joined:Jan 2010	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:14:32 AM Ignore Nicoalbum Report Abuse Yes, make beer not tar
cdrrod Champion Author Wisconsin Posts:4,164 Points:785,725 Joined:Feb 2006	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:04:26 AM Ignore cdrrod Report Abuse "...Greenhouse gas produced by the oil sands is a fraction of the amount spewed by U.S. coal-fired power plants. In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons." So what is the problem, Mr. President? Your Pac-Groups?
mastermariner Champion Author Texas Posts:4,249 Points:495,675 Joined:Jun 2011	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:59:28 AM Ignore mastermariner Report Abuse Agree
lesabreAZ Champion Author Phoenix Posts:1,696 Points:413,430 Joined:Nov 2011	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:58:45 AM Ignore lesabreAZ Report Abuse If it was Keystone Beer we'd have a pipline...