Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

?Impact

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,434

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ?Impact

  1. ?Impact
    Who is qualified to comment on policy? The scientists are qualified to comment on the physical implications, and then I would say the rest of the world is equal on policy to the extent they understand the physical implications (which varies, but often is low and very often people ignore them or pretend they are otherwise).
  2. ?Impact
    No, but one can extrapolate from it. For Canada it is probably around $3 trillion, give or take.
  3. ?Impact
    Wrong. Burning natural gas (or anything) is a chemical reaction. The methane and oxygen from the air form carbon dioxide and water. If you have complete combustion, then no methane is released. No we don't have 100% efficiency, but generally it is very high. CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O
  4. ?Impact
    From what I can find out the comparisons were: This plant: 12 million tons LNG/year, or 2.25E17 Joules Syncrude: 35 million barrels/year, or 7.07E16 Joules TransAlta coal plant: 2,141 MW capacity* or maximum of 6.75E16 Joules *Does anyone know what the actual production from this plant, the above is assuming it was running at 100% capacity every hour of every single day of the year All the above are somewhere near 11 megatons of GHG emissions Net result is this plant will provide over 3 times the energy of the others with similar emissions.
  5. ?Impact
    Refined energy is still energy. We should be exporting value added products.
  6. ?Impact
    Agreed, which is why the only valid comparison is in joules of energy capacity in the exported product. Are you agreeing with me that Canada should not export raw energy? Should we say no to this, oil sands, and all other energy exports? We know that Alberta has already increased it's GHG emissions since Canada signed onto reduction totals by 100 million tons or 10 times the size of this plant, and plans to increase it by at least that amount again in the next 15 years.
  7. ?Impact
    Very different scenario. The project is not a Canadian government one, it is being financed by PETRONAS, Sinopec, JAPEX, Indian Oil Corporation and PetroleumBRUNEI. They still need to make the final decision based on the 190 conditions that were specified.
  8. ?Impact
    Get it from Environment Canada.
  9. ?Impact
    Best sound bite from Rex tonight on Monday's debate: "seance of unreason"
  10. ?Impact
    Will they? Yes, end use is an important factor as well but at this moment we are only talking energy. I have long said we shouldn't be exporting raw materials, including energy. I doubt plastic will be the major use of the crude oil, but even if it were that is no noble goal. Past use suggests that most of the crude will go into vehicles of one kind or another, and most of the gas will be used for heating and electricity generation. b.t.w. Nowhere does it say that this will be the largest GHG emitter in the country. It has the potential to be larger than the Syncrude plant but by the time it is built the Syncrude plant will no doubt have grown capacity and emissions. The only valid conclusion you can draw is that this plant will be in the same order of magnitude as the others are today.
  11. ?Impact
    Good comparison, all you are missing is how much downstream energy do they supply? That is very important because it addresses efficiency.
  12. ?Impact

    Our American friends will be happy to notice that this Canadian site see American politics section has 25% the number of replies compared to Canadian federal politics.

    1. Show previous comments  12 more
    2. ?Impact

      ?Impact

      only for 6 months less a day out of the year.

    3. bush_cheney2004

      bush_cheney2004

      Except for those who overstay their visas.

    4. poochy

      poochy

      Well i for one am glad we have some smug and self important Liberals here to notice and broadcast these type of irrelevancies, never stop being you liberal.

  13. ?Impact
    Yes, you can learn more about Lyle Rossiter in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. He basically concludes that if you don't agree with his political position then you are mentally ill. I think the good doctor is low on lithium.
  14. ?Impact
    Most of them track you with cookies, not ip address. I suggest you learn a bit about technology before commenting. Just to prove it, I went to the Time poll and voted 4 times (3 times for Clinton, and once for Trump for good measure); all from the same IP address.
  15. ?Impact
    IP address is completely useless to identify an individual. Most on-line polls do not use it, your suggestion is baseless, in addition it is meaningless because it doesn't identify the specific polls used and going back to the main point it doesn't accomplish what you suggest.
  16. ?Impact
    Thousands of jobs that he stiffed those who actually did the work for. And he is trying to change the system to make it easier for rich freeloaders like him to freeload some more. You are talking nonsense.
  17. ?Impact
    An online poll allows on to tweet to their friends (and retweet) to participate, as well as individuals can vote multiple times under aliases. A standard poll is based on demographics that match the country, and nobody can vote twice. You are wrong, the opportunities are completely different.
  18. ?Impact
    You are right, I did cherry pick. I picked standard polls and excluded on-line polls that are subject to rigging. Please find other standard polls and add them to the list.
  19. ?Impact
    Here are 4 standard (i.e. non rigged on-line) polls: CNN: Hillary +35 YouGov: Hillary +27 Morning Consult: Hillary +23 PPP: Hillary +11
  20. ?Impact
    Well I finally dropped in as I was seeing regular updates on the home page for this topic. Glad I did, some very nice tracks.
  21. ?Impact
    What a Trump supporter cheating? Say it isn`t so.
  22. ?Impact
    Absolutely appalling that they are trying to circumvent environmental assessments, but to compare this to the oil sands is ludicrous. Cement is a huge GHG concern, so yes it needs to be looked at closely. They are claiming to be 20% lower GHG emissions than other cement plants. From what I can tell, they will be about 2% the total GHG emissions compared to the oil sands. Another comparison I found is this plant will be 2% of Quebec emissions when it is ramped up, while the tar sands will be 14% of Canadian emissions (7% today).
  23. ?Impact
    Sorry, $114 billion, my bad. Are you going to put the Flaherty “liquidity support” support spin on it so you can avoid calling it a bailout?
  24. ?Impact
    Where did you cook up that from? The opposite has generally be the case. Note that sometimes there is a difference of opinion on who won the debate. For example in 2008, the political pundits said Clinton won but the public polls said Obama did.
  25. ?Impact
    Wrong. In the case of Canada, if we didn`t have the debt passed down from WWII and given the exact same spending we did we would not have a debt today, in fact a strong surplus*. *note I really need to redo this to reflect the Harper years as well, but I believe we would still be in surplus.
×
×
  • Create New...