Coal’s hot, oil’s not: Oilsands insignificant contributor to global wa

[PIK]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/22/coals-hot-oils-not-oilsands-insignificant-contributor-to-global-warming

Maybe it is time for a certain group of people in this country and pull thier heads out of their ass's and get behind this country , when it comes to our oil. The likes of may, suzuki and gore need to be removed from the debates, so we can have real debates on this and use the sands to build this country up. To much BS from the greenies that has just confused the issue ,which I think was thier intention, so the money scam could come into play. Buying credits does nothing ,we need real solutions and real facts and get rid of the political correctness, and tell countries like china and such to get with it.

Edited February 23, 2012 by PIK

[mentalfloss]

You're a week late and you're gonna get spanked.

[PIK]

You're a week late and you're gonna get spanked.

I was born late. lol But really we need to stand up against europe and everyone else trying to shut us down, Europe does not even use our oil but are leading the campaign to get rid of it. Alot of jealousy going on and we better get on the same page in this country and start fighting back against these countries or we will wake up some day and out main resourse will be worthless and then who is going to pay for the social programs in this country?

[waldo]

we need real solutions

real solutions... to what?

[waldo]

My guess...human induced global warming. We're being told by some that all the facts are in and we need to act. But like most scientific theories, it continuously evolves as our knowledge increases. This makes acting a little bit like trying to hit a moving target, easier with a shotgun, but with more collateral damage.

what works better, much better, is to have the fake skeptic OP identify the problem he presupposes the 'real solutions' need for... while posturing to presume to leverage a study which most certainly does not deliver a 'free pass' to tarsands proponents.

recognizing the late-to-the-party exuberance of the OP, see existing MLW thread on same topic - here:

[guyser]

...and we better get on the same page in this country and start fighting back against these countries or we will wake up some day and out main resourse will be worthless and then who is going to pay for the social programs in this country?

As if that is going to happen anytime soon.

[Topaz]

Harper went about dealing with Canadians and the oil sands the wrong way. Since money is the greed of man, he should promised every Canadians a cheque in the mail, for every amount of product of the sands sent out of the country. IF there is so much money to be made, then quarterly check would do the trick and share the wealth. Agree?

[Wild Bill]

Harper went about dealing with Canadians and the oil sands the wrong way. Since money is the greed of man, he should promised every Canadians a cheque in the mail, for every amount of product of the sands sent out of the country. IF there is so much money to be made, then quarterly check would do the trick and share the wealth. Agree?

If he did, you would be one of the first to cry that he's bribing voters!

[PIK]

If he did, you would be one of the first to cry that he's bribing voters!

LOL Now that is a good one.

[olpfan1]

Harper went about dealing with Canadians and the oil sands the wrong way. Since money is the greed of man, he should promised every Canadians a cheque in the mail, for every amount of product of the sands sent out of the country. IF there is so much money to be made, then quarterly check would do the trick and share the wealth. Agree?

hey I'm all for that!! come on harper, share the wealth you oil tanker

[Wild Bill]

hey I'm all for that!! come on harper, share the wealth you oil tanker

You would be the second! What's more, you would likely have absolutely no idea why we are laughing at you!

[RNG]

I was a co-author of a paper presented at a Canadian Society of Unconventional Gas conference which was also published in the Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal. We showed without a doubt that if the US changed all it's coal fired electrical plants to natural gas, they would more than exceed the EU desired 2020 reduction in CO2 emissions. Not to mention the other poisons that coal fired plants spew. Think about it when you bad-mouth the oilsands.

[waldo]

I was a co-author of a paper presented at a Canadian Society of Unconventional Gas conference which was also published in the Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal. We showed without a doubt that if the US changed all it's coal fired electrical plants to natural gas, they would more than exceed the EU desired 2020 reduction in CO2 emissions. Not to mention the other poisons that coal fired plants spew. Think about it when you bad-mouth the oilsands.

in your hypothetical scenario, are you factoring methane considerations? Notwithstanding (other non-emission related) raised concerns over the ramp-up towards fracking, your claimed paper seems to be at odds with, for example:

1 -

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

--- journal Climatic Change - Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage

2 -

Cornell University

--- journal Climatic Change - Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development

there is a reason proponents touting natural gas as a "bridge fuel" are said to be fronting a "bridge to nowhere".

in any case, notwithstanding the frivolity in speculating on the most unlikely, ain't gonna occur, coal-to-natural gas electrical plant change-overs, just what does any of that have to do with the tarsands, bad-mouthing or otherwise?

[Moonbox]

It highlights the hypocrisy of most of the countries criticizing Canada's oil sands. They don't have a leg to stand on because their largest source of energy, by far, is coal, the world's dirtiest source.

Europe, for example, was still depending on coal for something like 31% of their energy generation in 2007.

Extracting Canadian oil is dirtier than conventional drilling in, say, Saudi Arabia, but whoopity doo. The majority of emissions come from when you burn the stuff, not mine it. The environmental impact of burning coal, which the Europeans still do aplenty, is far more significant than the added emissions from merely gathering Canadian crude.

Europe would be a lot cleaner burning Canadian tar-sand oil than their coal, but coal is much cheaper, so they stick to coal. It's a ridiculous smear-campaign championed by a bunch of goofy no-nothings who've for some reason fixated on the terms "dirty oil" and "tar sands", and can't put their money where their mouths are.

[mentalfloss]

It highlights the hypocrisy of most of the countries criticizing Canada's oil sands. They don't have a leg to stand on because their largest source of energy, by far, is coal, the world's dirtiest source.

Criticism of the environmental impacts of one resource isn't wrong simply because another resource also impacts the environment.

[Moonbox]

Criticism of the environmental impacts of one resource isn't wrong simply because another resource also impacts the environment.

Nobody is arguing whether or not pollution is bad though. Everyone can agree (I think) that we want to keep our air clean.

What's pathetic about the whole argument, however, is that environmentalists are crusading against a form of energy which is in fact a cleaner alternative to another, dirtier, more widely used form, which is getting nowhere near the same amount of negative attention. Politicians around the world (particularly Europe) have decided to single Canada out for its energy exports, which has the added benefit to them of directing attention away from their poor records, particularly their coal burning.

That's like boycotting Subway for having unhealthy sandwich sauces when there's a McDonald's across the street.

[waldo]

What's pathetic about the whole argument, however, is that environmentalists are crusading against a form of energy which is in fact a cleaner alternative to another, dirtier, more widely used form, which is getting nowhere near the same amount of negative attention.

coal has a decades long focus of raised concern throughout various European countries. The EU proposal to update it's Vehicle Fuel Quality Directive standards, obviously (duh!) has no correlation to energy plant CO2 emission levels sourced to coal. Notwithstanding substantial efforts toward alternative energy sources, the European Union is actively engaged in actions/research to reduce the environmental impact of coal sourced power plants... promoting research into and development of

CO2 capture and storage (CCS), Clean coal technologies (CCT), and technologies to harness methane as an energy source.

as for emission levels, can you cite anything that speaks to an actual longer-term trending level of emissions attributed to coal usage?

Politicians around the world (particularly Europe) have decided to single Canada out for its energy exports, which has the added benefit to them of directing attention away from their poor records, particularly their coal burning.

nonsense. Canada is not being singled out. As stated now several times, the proposed updates to the EU Fuel Quality Directive standards associate to non-conventional sources:

Again, the proposal associates to upgrading EU standards for 'Fuel Quality Directives'; in this case, unconventional sources, like oil shale, liquid coal... and tarsands bitumen. All these sources have scientifically identified higher emission attachments than do conventional sources.

life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels:

... the proposed new EU standards encompass greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designations for a grouping of described unconventional sources such as:

- oil shale with a proposed GHG value of 131.3 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (CO2eq/MJ)

- coal-to-liquid with a proposed GHG value of 172 CO2eq/MJ

-

bitumen derived (tarsands) with a proposed GHG value of 107 CO2eq/MJ

as compared to crude oil with a GHG value of 87.5g CO2eq/MJ

as has been highlighted in other like related threads, the EU proposal does not specifically target Canada/Canadian Industry... rather, it targets 'unconventional' higher emission sources. In that regard, significant EU effect will associate to the proposed figure associated with the unconventional sources of oil/gas associated with fracking methodologies (both internal and in external purchase from Russia), and to a lesser extent, liquid coal (most notably, internally with Poland)... and, of course, Canada is not the world's sole purveyor of tarsands source.

[Moonbox]

coal has a decades long focus of raised concern throughout various European countries.

'Raised concerns' are a little different than outright smear campaigns and boycotts from the world's politicians, celebrities and moronic blow hards like Al Gore. Instead of crusading against the oil sands and calling them the world's 'dirtiest fuel', maybe Al Gore could focus on not bs'ing everyone and also on his own country's absymal (and worse) environmental record.

Anyone still burning tons of coal right now and then turning to criticize Canada's oil sands has zero credibility.

[Wild Bill]

Anyone still burning tons of coal right now and then turning to criticize Canada's oil sands has zero credibility.

Sadly MB, only with rational people!

[Moonbox]

Wish there were more of those around here...

[mentalfloss]

Anyone still burning tons of coal right now and then turning to criticize Canada's oil sands has zero credibility.

No, this is a fallacy.

Especially if they are trying to reduce the use of coal or are dependent on it as their only resource.

You're looking at this too simplistically.

Edited March 2, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Wild Bill]

No, this is a fallacy.

Especially if they are trying to reduce the use of coal or are dependent on it as their only resource.

You're looking at this too simplistically.

Perhaps you'd like to cite China, Russia or India as models?

[waldo]

coal has a decades long focus of raised concern throughout various European countries. The EU proposal to update it's Vehicle Fuel Quality Directive standards, obviously (duh!) has no correlation to energy plant CO2 emission levels sourced to coal. Notwithstanding substantial efforts toward alternative energy sources, the European Union is actively engaged in actions/research to reduce the environmental impact of coal sourced power plants... promoting research into and development of CO2 capture and storage (CCS), Clean coal technologies (CCT), and technologies to harness methane as an energy source.

'Raised concerns' are a little different than outright smear campaigns and boycotts from the world's politicians, celebrities and moronic blow hards like Al Gore. Instead of crusading against the oil sands and calling them the world's 'dirtiest fuel', maybe Al Gore could focus on not bs'ing everyone and also on his own country's absymal (and worse) environmental record.

Anyone still burning tons of coal right now and then turning to criticize Canada's oil sands has zero credibility.

nice goal posts move! Your initial rant targeted European countries (the EU)... it's somewhat telling that when you're presented with a countered reality as to what the EU is actually doing to manage/reduce coal sourced emissions, when you're challenged to present actual EU coal emission trending level data... all of a sudden you revert to the ever ready fake skeptics go-to, "Al Gore". Gore doesn't hold any particular presence today, no matter how hard fake skeptics like to keep him around as a handy boogeyman. As to your point about Gore targeting his own country's abysmal position, he most certainly has not been hesitant to do exactly that - of course, he's a polarizing voice up against the lunatic TeaParty/Republican/industry voices that most certainly are against any emission reduction considerations... after all, those wingnuts want to disband the EPA!

you keep pushing this false premise that EU politicians are engaged in, "smear and boycott" of the tarsands. That is absolutely false... again, the proposal to update the EU Vehicle Fuel Quality Directive standards is targeted at non-conventional sources, like oil shale, liquid coal... and tarsands bitumen. All these sources have scientifically identified higher emission attachments than do conventional sources. There is no smear or boycott campaign against Canada... quit pumping this false narrative!

the combined yearly emissions of the twenty-seven countries of the EU27 are no where near the yearly emissions of the United States. As I stated, the EU has a most comprehensive program of research and development actively working to reduce the environmental impact of coal sourced power plants... and, of course, the EU has significant program targets working to integrate higher levels of alternative energy sources into their overall portfolio mix. I'd suggest you start to (attempt to) put some facts behind your nonsense.

[waldo]

Perhaps you'd like to cite China, Russia or India as models?

perhaps you'd like to... Russia/India are lightweights compared to China and the U.S.; it is only in recent years that China has pushed the U.S. back from it's traditional leading position, to now become the world's second worst emissions emitter. Several times in the past, I've put up a graphic that compares the levels of historical emissions (U.S. versus China)... even at China's current accelerated rate, estimates suggest it may take until 2050 before China's total historical emissions approach that of the U.S.. As we've discussed through many assorted MLW threads, China is actively engaged in emissions reduction initiatives and efficiency improvements... the U.S. is engaged in political theatre (gridlock) preventing it from moving forward on any significant emission reduction strategy.

[Moonbox]

nice goal posts move! Your initial rant targeted European countries (the EU)... it's somewhat telling that when you're presented with a countered reality as to what the EU is actually doing to manage/reduce coal sourced emissions, when you're challenged to present actual EU coal emission trending level data...

Wait...what? The EU is using more coal than ever. In 1995, coal accounted for 31% of Europe's energy mix. By 2007, it was 30% of their energy mix. I guess you could say that's a positive trend, except for the fact that their energy consumption went up by 45%. Over that 12 year period, they managed a whopping 40% increase in how much coal they've been using. That's just heroic...

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/energy_mix.pdf

all of a sudden you revert to the ever ready fake skeptics go-to, "Al Gore". Gore doesn't hold any particular presence today, no matter how hard fake skeptics like to keep him around as a handy boogeyman.

Okay fine. We'll leave Al Gore out of it.

you keep pushing this false premise that EU politicians are engaged in, "smear and boycott" of the tarsands. That is absolutely false... again, the proposal to update the EU Vehicle Fuel Quality Directive standards is targeted at non-conventional sources, like oil shale, liquid coal... and tarsands bitumen. All these sources have scientifically identified higher emission attachments than do conventional sources. There is no smear or boycott campaign against Canada... quit pumping this false narrative!

It's all indicative of Europe's tendency to choose where and how it's appropriate to be 'green'. Conventional fuel, as far as they're concerned, is the lighter crude at their doorstep that they're able to import from relatively nearby sources (Libya,Mideast, Eastern Europe) by pipeline and Mediterranean shipping. The stuff barely even needs to be refined compared to the heavy crude that North America mostly imports.

the combined yearly emissions of the twenty-seven countries of the EU27 are no where near the yearly emissions of the United States.

That's comparing apples to oranges. Half of the countries in the EU are nowhere near as industrialized and productive as the US. Of the countries that are (even nominally), they enjoy the enormous logistical advantages of denser populations, smaller distances to travel, convenient maritime shipping routes and milder climate.

As I stated, the EU has a most comprehensive program of research and development actively working to reduce the environmental impact of coal sourced power plants... and, of course, the EU has significant program targets working to integrate higher levels of alternative energy sources into their overall portfolio mix. I'd suggest you start to (attempt to) put some facts behind your nonsense.

That's pure smoke and mirrors BS waldo, no offense to you intended. Coal, by its very nature, is filthy, and the technology to make it meaningfully cleaner simply doesn't exist right now. It won't be viable for another 15-20 years. If you care to, you can read the study published by MIT linked in this article. It is long and boring though. Fair warning

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/30/fossilfuels-carbonemissions

From that you have to start to wonder how serious Europe really is about the environment. A lot of it appears to be optics to me. A lot of the favourable comparisons they like to make to North America are generally achieved not by pain and sacrifice on their end, but by default from the advantages I listed earlier. Where they COULD make meaningful changes and sacrifice, they don't.