Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:52 AM

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 Back to Topics
Nicoalbum

Champion Author
Ottawa

Posts:8,628
Points:1,685,155
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:56:54 AM

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) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:12,936
Points:1,246,475
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2013 12:22:01 AM

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!!!!
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2013 11:14:09 PM


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!
Profile Pic
TruthMatters
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:3,616
Points:973,085
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2013 2:55:24 PM

Tree huggers aren't what they used to be!
Profile Pic
2khawk
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:7,678
Points:1,424,580
Joined:Oct 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:49:24 PM

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.
Profile Pic
nsdp
Champion Author San Antonio

Posts:1,118
Points:77,285
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:23:32 PM

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]
Profile Pic
TXRammer
Rookie Author Austin

Posts:29
Points:7,405
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 3:14:29 PM

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.
Profile Pic
JoeKR
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:11,491
Points:1,998,355
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:23:10 PM

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.
Profile Pic
nerde
Champion Author Florida

Posts:7,078
Points:1,500,000
Joined:Jul 2009
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:14:36 PM

The Kochs get what they want from a government for sale.
Profile Pic
kyjlh
Champion Author Kentucky

Posts:3,776
Points:1,100,650
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:00:57 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
highdesertman
Champion Author Albuquerque

Posts:4,618
Points:2,147,685
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 1:46:12 PM

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.
Profile Pic
Snowball2013
Champion Author Yakima

Posts:1,638
Points:343,840
Joined:Jan 2013
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 1:05:25 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
evowner
Champion Author Salem

Posts:4,731
Points:847,605
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:52:27 PM

What a choice, Keystone or coal. Both are projects sold on the promise and have in the past, delivered pollution. Why expect differently?
Profile Pic
CVA19
Champion Author Salem

Posts:2,585
Points:1,050,925
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:12:38 PM

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.
Profile Pic
humblepie
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:54,621
Points:2,871,270
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:11:21 PM

so much eco nonsense so few reasonable people
Profile Pic
md11capt
Champion Author Denver

Posts:4,594
Points:1,137,950
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 12:10:48 PM

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]
Profile Pic
VomVom
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:3,950
Points:2,000,020
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:37:40 AM


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.

Profile Pic
Zuegma
Champion Author Nova Scotia

Posts:3,241
Points:744,690
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:34:50 AM

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.
Profile Pic
Nicoalbum
Champion Author Ottawa

Posts:8,628
Points:1,685,155
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:14:32 AM

Yes, make beer not tar
Profile Pic
cdrrod
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:6,240
Points:1,251,995
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 11:04:26 AM

"...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?
Profile Pic
mastermariner
Champion Author Texas

Posts:12,441
Points:970,710
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:59:28 AM

Agree
Profile Pic
lesabreAZ
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,946
Points:899,280
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:58:45 AM

If it was Keystone Beer we'd have a pipline...
Post a reply Back to Topics