Tories love the oilsands

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

Lots of thorium around. Trickier to work with but ultimately safer it will be the backbone of our future energy system.

http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/

Possibly.

Nuclear fusion might eventually become feasible too. (More energy content than Uranium, fewer problems with waste management.) Of course, it always seems like fusion energy is always "just around the corner".

Biofuels may be an option too. (Not necessarily ethanol-from-corn, but something along the lines of genetically engineered algae producing hydrocarbons.)

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

I didn't mention you in my post. I said "the" socialists not "this" socialist...heh....geez as soon as I post anything everyone loves to jump all over me for no reason at all. Even when I post something normal.

I'm not a socialist either. Yet I had one of the earlier posts in this thread pushing for nuclear power.

If your suggest that "they" (socialists) are finally accepting nuclear power after the first post or 2 praising the advantages of it, then who exactly do you expect us to think you were referring to?

Shady · December 17, 2009

Sometimes it is. Why is everything so continually black and white with you?

He's right. You cannot guarantee equal outcomes. Everyone has different interests, talents, ambitions, etc. You're a communist. If you don't like our Canadian economic system, I suggest you leave the country. I'm sure you'll like Cuba or Venezuela much much better.

BubberMiley · December 17, 2009

If you don't like our Canadian economic system, I suggest you leave the country.

And when we inevitably accept emmission targets and you don't like it, where are you going to go?

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

We are already exporting as much electricity as we can. We don't have hydro developments that we did not bother to exploit because we were too busy digging up the oil sands.

There are many more sources of clean energy than just hydro.

The bottom line is the oil sands brings in the wealth we use to purchase products from other countries. There is no industry waiting on the sidelines that can replace it. Getting rid of it means we would be poorer.

So anything that brings us wealth is OK, no matter what the negative effects are down the road? Phasing out dirty energy sources wouldn't make us poorer, and not all wealth is measured in dollars and cents. Clear air, pure water, and un-contaminated land are much less expensive to keep clean than to clean-up after they get contaminated.

"clean" energy is expensive because it is diffuse and unreliable. This means it requires a large infrastructure to exploit and this infrastructure makes it hugely expensive. These basic laws of physics are not going to change becuase of government subsidies.

Are you saying that oil doesn't require a large infrastructure? Refineries. Pipelines. Tanker trucks. Gas stations everywhere. We already have electrical infrastructure that goes to most homes. As we saw with the 2002 black-out, our electrical distribution system is in need of an upgrade, so why not use the opportunity to take advantage of the coming increases in demand for electricity from the US?

Is it fair that some people make more than others?

That's not the question. The question is: Is if fair for people to pollute more because they are wealthy?

Edited December 17, 2009 by robert_viera

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

There are many more sources of clean energy than just hydro.

None of them economically viable when you compare the investment required to the energy actually produced.

Phasing out dirty energy sources wouldn't make us poorer, and not all wealth is measured in dollars and cents.

It takes dollars to pay for healthcare and other social programs. What are you willing to give up?

Are you saying that oil doesn't require a large infrastructure?

It is the cost of the infrastructure per unit of power delivered that matters. Oil delivers a lot of power with that large infrastructure. The equivalent infrastructure for renewables would have to be much much larger. That is why renewables like wind and solar will never be more than bit players.

That's not the question. The question is: Is if fair for people to pollute more because they are wealthy?

Is it fair for wealthy people to have nicer cars or houses? Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

None of them economically viable.

Not if we stop subsidizing dirty energy and make them responsible for cleaning up their mess.

It takes dollars to pay for healthcare and other social programs. What are you willing to give up?

False dichotomy.

It is the cost of the infrastructure per unit of power delivered that matters. Oil delivers a lot of power with that large infrastructure. The equivalent infrastructure for renewables would have to be much much larger. That is why renewables like wind and solar will never be more than bit players.

Does your cost include the cost of cleaning up pollution and dealing with problems caused by temperature increases?

Is it fair for wealthy people to have nicer cars or houses?

Quit trying to change the subject. Is it fair for wealthy people to pollute more than poor people?

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

Not if we stop subsidizing dirty energy and make them responsible for cleaning up their mess.

It does not make a difference what we do with fossil fuels - renewables are not economic because they require too many inputs for the power they produce.

False dichotomy.

It is not. Money pays for the social programs and the only way to get that money is to have industries which are net producers of wealth. Subsdized industries are not net producers of wealth.

Does your cost include the cost of cleaning up pollution and dealing with problems caused by temperature increases?

Any temperature increases will likely be a net benefit to Canada. I do believe that real pollution like tailing ponds need to be dealt with but as long as people obsess about CO2 those kinds of pollution will be ignored. That why I think we should forget about CO2.

Quit trying to change the subject. Is it fair for wealthy people to pollute more than poor people?

I am not changing the subject. If it is fair for wealthy people to have better houses and better cars then it is fair for them to pollute more. In fact, it mathematically impossible for wealthy people to pollute no more than average if they consume more than average. That is why I say calling for equal per capita CO2 emissions is the same as calling for equal per capita income.

The world per capita income is 9K/year. Do you think Canadians should accept that?

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

Hydraboss · December 17, 2009

You're probably correct that the plastics in my computer come from petroleum, but I don't know how you can say what type of energy was used in it's manufacture.

"Probably"?? You do know that plastic is a petroleum byproduct, right? That phone you answered today, yep, plastic. The water bottle you just drank from....plastic. The "environmentally friendly" micro car you bought (yes, even the hybrid)....you'll never guess!!!....made in large part from plastic. Ever fly on a jet? Anywhere? Know what they burn??? Kerosene. Wanna guess where that comes from?

I don't see how we are being forced to pay money to Africa. If we decide not to help out 3rd-world nations, that's our choice, but you have to live with the consequences.

Ever heard of a little place called Copenhagen? Kyoto maybe? As for consequences, ya, I'll live with them. In front of one of my big screens or while driving one of my two V8 trucks. Hope it doesn't keep me up at night........

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

It does not make a difference what we do with fossil fuels - renewables are not economic because they require too many inputs for the power they produce.

Fossil fuels aren't economic. The dirty energy industry dodges paying the true cost and sticks the taxpayer with the bill for undoing the damage they do.

It is not. Money pays for the social programs and the only way to get that money is to have industries which are net producers of wealth. Subsdized industries are not net producers of wealth.

How did we manage before the oilsands?

Any temperature increases will likely be a net benefit to Canada. I do believe that real pollution like tailing ponds need to be dealt with but as long as people obsess about CO2 those kinds of pollution will be ignored. That why I think we should forget about CO2.

I wonder if Alberta's neighbours in the BC timber industry would agree with you. I understand that rising temperatures has allowed the mountain pine beetle to devastate that industry.

I am not changing the subject. If it is fair for wealthy people to have better houses and better cars then it is fair for them to pollute more. In fact, it mathematically impossible for wealthy people to pollute no more than average if they consume more than average. That is why I say calling for equal per capita CO2 emissions is the same as calling for equal per capita income.

The world per capita income is 9K/year. Do you think Canadians should accept that?

You're making an erroneous assumption that consumption has to lead to pollution. It doesn't have to be that way.

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

Fossil fuels aren't economic.

Fossil fuels have built the world economy today. Overall the health of humanity is better than it ever has been. But you are also evading the real issue: renewables other than hydro require too much capital and produce too little power. They cannot be used to run the economy we have.

How did we manage before the oilsands?

We were poorer. But we also had other industries which have long since relocated to cheaper jurisdictions. The future for Canada lies in industries that cannot outsourced like the oil sands.

I wonder if Alberta's neighbours in the BC timber industry would agree with you. I understand that rising temperatures has allowed the mountain pine beetle to devastate that industry.

That was more a result of fire suppression which provided a perfect beetle buffet of old trees than temperatures. I also said 'net' benefit. i.e. the positives will outweigh the negatives.

You're making an erroneous assumption that consumption has to lead to pollution. It doesn't have to be that way.

Why? Because you wave you magic wand and wish it to be true? In any case, it is not true now which means demanding that every pollute the same IS the same as demanding that everyone have the same income. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

"Probably"?? You do know that plastic is a petroleum byproduct, right? That phone you answered today, yep, plastic. The water bottle you just drank from....plastic. The "environmentally friendly" micro car you bought (yes, even the hybrid)....you'll never guess!!!....made in large part from plastic. Ever fly on a jet? Anywhere? Know what they burn??? Kerosene. Wanna guess where that comes from?

No. Plastics are not all made from petroleum. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic I'm not saying we're going to phase out fossil fuels overnight, but we ought to be moving in the right direction.

Ever heard of a little place called Copenhagen? Kyoto maybe? As for consequences, ya, I'll live with them. In front of one of my big screens or while driving one of my two V8 trucks. Hope it doesn't keep me up at night........

If owning big screens TVs and V8 trucks is all you aspire to, then I guess you'll be happy with that.

Mr.Canada · December 17, 2009

Why not look at India which is polluting on a massive scale. You cannot even breathe in Beijing for all the pollution. Surely those two nations have more work to do on their emissions then Canada does.

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

Why? Because you wave you magic wand and wish it to be true? In any case, it is not true now which means demanding that every pollute the same IS the same as demanding that everyone have the same income.

Naysayers and defeatists who try to block the march of progress line the dustbin of history.

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

No. Plastics are not all made from petroleum. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic I'm not saying we're going to phase out fossil fuels overnight, but we ought to be moving in the right direction.

Producing plastics from plants requires 4x the energy. We will be an energy starved society if we don't use fossil fuels.

If owning big screens TVs and V8 trucks is all you aspire to, then I guess you'll be happy with that.

Who are you to judge him?

Naysayers and defeatists who try to block the march of progress line the dustbin of history.

Communism is not progress and that is why it is in the dustbin of history. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

Producing plastics from plants requires 4x the energy. We will be an energy starved society if we don't use fossil fuels.

Who are you to judge him?

So you're saying if we satisfy our material needs we need not have any conscience about the side effects of our choices or the lot of our fellow man?

Communism is not progress and that is why it is in the dustbin of history.

I thought branding everyone who disagrees with you a "communist" went out of fashion with Senator Joe McCarthy.

Edited December 17, 2009 by robert_viera

bush_cheney2004 · December 17, 2009

So you're saying if we satisfy our material needs we need not have any conscience about the side effects of our choices or the lot of our fellow man?

Absolutely not....as there is no evidence of "fellow man" having such a conscience either.

I thought branding everyone who disagrees with you a "communist" went out of fashion with Senator Joe McCarthy.

Nope....the NDP keeps the tradition alive and well.

BubberMiley · December 17, 2009

Any temperature increases will likely be a net benefit to Canada.

So, your position is there is no man-made climate change, but if there is, it would benefit Canada?

I love this forum. You, Shady, Leafless and Oleg Bach are why I keep coming back.

But I miss Leafless...

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

So you're saying if we satisfy our material needs we need not have any conscience about the side effects of our choices or the lot of our fellow man?

Everything in balance. If you care about environmental issues you need to make sure there is a healthy economy first. You cannot advocate policies that will kill key wealth producing industries without anything more than wishful thinking.

I thought branding everyone who disagrees with you a "communist" went out of fashion with Senator Joe McCarthy.

Communism is an economist philosophy that says that each human is entitled to exactly the same wealth no matter how large or small their contribution to society. By saying that each human is entitled to exactly the CO2 emissions you are arguing that each human is entitled to exactly the wealth. IOW - you are espousing communism. There is simply no other word to describe your philosophy.

robert_viera · December 17, 2009

Everything in balance. If you care about environmental issues you need to make sure there is a healthy economy first. You cannot advocate policies that will kill key wealth producing industries without anything more than wishful thinking.

Sustainable development isn't wishful thinking.

Communism is an economist philosophy that says that each human is entitled to exactly the same wealth no matter how large or small their contribution to society. By saying that each human is entitled to exactly the CO2 emissions you are arguing that each human is entitled to exactly the wealth. IOW - you are espousing communism. There is simply no other word to describe your philosophy.

I didn't say that everyone ought to have the same wealth, and I didn't say that everyone should have the same greenhouse gas emissions. I just think greater wealth shouldn't be an excuse for polluting more. You've been arguing that non-polluting energy sources are more expensive than fossil fuels. If that's the case, then the wealthy ought to be able to afford to pollute less.

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

Sustainable development isn't wishful thinking.

'Sustainable development' is a buzzword that means many things - some of them practical and some are not. At this time, renewables cannot provide the energy we need at a manageble cost and there is no reason to believe that is going to change because of the fundemental physics of energy production. I am, of cource, prepared to change my mind if someone manages to come up with an economically viable way to produce the energy we need from renewables. But until then we need the fossil fuels and calls to 'phase them out' are nothing but fantasies.

I didn't say that everyone ought to have the same wealth, and I didn't say that everyone should have the same greenhouse gas emissions.

And I saying the two are inseperable. You cannot have wealth without GHG emissions. I can't find a graph right now but if you plot GHG emissions vs wealth you will see a near linear relationship.

been arguing that non-polluting energy sources are more expensive than fossil fuels. If that's the case, then the wealthy ought to be able to afford to pollute less.

In other words you are saying is the wealthy should have their wealth taken away by being forced to pay for more expensive energy sources. It does not make a difference how you dress it up but your principal of equal per capita GHG emissions can only be met with equal per capita wealth. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

BubberMiley · December 17, 2009

Everything in balance. If you care about environmental issues you need to make sure there is a healthy economy first. You cannot advocate policies that will kill key wealth producing industries without anything more than wishful thinking.

If you care about economic issues you need to make sure there is a healthy environment first. You cannot advocate policies that will kill key wealth producing industries without anything more than wishful thinking.

blueblood · December 17, 2009

Possibly.

Nuclear fusion might eventually become feasible too. (More energy content than Uranium, fewer problems with waste management.) Of course, it always seems like fusion energy is always "just around the corner".

Biofuels may be an option too. (Not necessarily ethanol-from-corn, but something along the lines of genetically engineered algae producing hydrocarbons.)

Sorry corn has to be an option, energy demands of the world are continuing to grow. The problem isn't going to be "dirty energy" it's going to be "affordable energy".

The richer the developing world gets, the more energy they need. Canada is a net exporter of grains, biofuels make grains more expensive. Why would we not want to maximize the value of our exports?

Riverwind · December 17, 2009

If you care about economic issues you need to make sure there is a healthy environment first. You cannot advocate policies that will kill key wealth producing industries without anything more than wishful thinking.

Sure. And you might have a point if you could show that there actually is a link between CO2 emissions and a healthy environment. The reality is CO2 is a harmless gas in the quanties we are emitting and the environment will be perfectly fine even if it does warm a few degrees. The putative AGW problem is only a human economic problem which means sacrificing the economy to protect the economy makes as much sense as 'burning the village to save it'. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

Shady · December 17, 2009

I thought branding everyone who disagrees with you a "communist" went out of fashion with Senator Joe McCarthy.

This is why you're branded with communist.

Meanwhile, over at Copenhagen:

"When he (Hugo Chavez) said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening."

“our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Link

You speak the exact same language my friend. Or should I say, comrade.