Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas

[TimG]

The reality is that the fossil fuel industry only continues because we subsidize its existence by trading shorter lives, health issues and the environment that we will pass along to our kids for cheaper gas. That seems like a bad trade to many of us.

None of this is true. Without wealth created by a society that has access to cheap energy we would have much shorter lifespans and worse problems with the environment.

As shortlived said, we need to preserve the remaining hydrocarbons for things where there are no alternatives and move on to sustainable and green energy.

Sorry. We can't power the world with magic fairy dust. When renewables become cost effective they will be used. Until then the choice is either: use the fossil fuels we have or starve in the dark.

[Guest]

You are wrong.

Even piss can replace gasoline.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/07/pee-powered-cars/ and this is not isolated.. there have been these things for over 30 years now.

The BYPRODUCT IS NATURAL FERTALIZER! Which can be used in urban growing, aquaponics and other nitrate applications.

Turkey guts, old tires, used plastic bottles, and municipal sewage can be turned into gasoline too.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/may/featoil

It's not though, which means it's not as easy as the article said it was. The follow ups confirm that. I suspect it is the same with urine power.

Edited April 1, 2013 by bcsapper

[BC_chick]

None of this is true. Without wealth created by a society that has access to cheap energy we would have much shorter lifespans and worse problems with the environment.

Sorry. We can't power the world with magic fairy dust. When renewables become cost effective they will be used. Until then the choice is either: use the fossil fuels we have or starve in the dark.

Technology for alternative energy will continue to advance at a snail pace when people like you continue to defend the use of fossil-fuels as the only viable option.

Also, call it 'conspiracy' but you're in denial if you really think the oil lobby is not influential enough to hinder progress and advancement because it is in their interest to do so.

[kairos]

Well put. Conservatives want us stuck in the 19th century in terms of transportation technology, because they can control it and use it to keep society stunted and as close to their dream of the Victorian Age as possible.

Edited April 1, 2013 by kairos

[Wilber]

Alternate energy is fine but the reality is, there is nothing that has close to the amount of energy per volume as liquid petroleum and is as easily stored or as portable. That makes it by far the most suited to being used as a motor fuel. That's just a fact. Petroleum will be an important fuel for the foreseeable future regardless of what other systems we come up with. Too bad really because it is so important in the manufacture of other things (irreplaceable in some) that it is a waste to just burn it.

[TimG]

Technology for alternative energy will continue to advance at a snail pace when people like you continue to defend the use of fossil-fuels as the only viable option.

Don't blame me because the laws of physics are the way they are. All I am doing is telling you the facts. I realize that a lot of people who know nothing about the physics that governs energy production and distribution really want to believe that renewables can work. But wishing something to be true does not make it real.

Also, call it 'conspiracy' but you're in denial if you really think the oil lobby is not influential enough to hinder progress and advancement because it is in their interest to do so.

There are many countries in the world with different vested interests. Only some of them care much about the 'oil lobby'. If renewables were remotely viable you would see some country starting to deploy the widely. All we see today are countries that did spend a lot of money are now cutting back their subsidies because they have belatedly realized that they cannot rewrite the laws of physics with taxpayer money.

[kairos]

Your laws of physics at work.

[RNG]

Well put. Conservatives want us stuck in the 19th century in terms of transportation technology, because they can control it and use it to keep society stunted and as close to their dream of the Victorian Age as possible.

How are Conservatives causing us to be stuck in the 19th century? For vehicles, trains, ships and planes, what do you propose as an alternative. Several countries have tried natural gas. There is a mild decrease in CO2 emisions largely offset by limited range and safey issues with carrying a high pressure tank. Ethanol and biodiesel have proven to be ecologically problematic. And hydrogen is still pie in the sky.

Perhaps a Eureka moment may come and allow the development of high(er) capacity batteries, but those too are problematic in vehicle crashes. And fuel cells are pie in the sky. Not in terms of technology, but where will you get the hydrogen? Below is an analysis that is about 4 years old now, but not much has changed. And take note, the recent article titled something like "Cheaper Energy Storage" which appeared on the CBC site is only claiming cheaper catalysts for the electrolysis of water

Like most people, I have been watching

oil prices very closely, trying to figure out what is going on, and

perhaps more importantly what is going to happen. And I have been

thinking more and more about fuel cells and the push for a “hydrogen

economy”. I have spouted off a few times about there not being an

economically viable source of hydrogen several times. But ongoing

talk about fuel cell powered cars, an aggressive advertising campaign

by GM, and just my general interest caused me to do the following.

***Most of the numbers input here are

from Wikipedia.***

There are 243 million passenger

vehicles in the US. (2004). For ease of calculation, and probably

viable given the growth in the past four years, lets say 250 million.

250 X 10E6, each driven 12000 miles and

getting 25 mpg all divided by 365 = 329 million gallons a day of gas

consumed. Interestingly enough, after all that thinking and math, I

Googled “gas consumption” and got several hits in the 320 to 330

million gallon per day result. But I figured I’d show off a bit

and include this analysis.

Now a more thorny problem. What is the

efficiency of a current car. I couldn’t find good data for this.

One article talked about a modern internal combustion engine being

40% efficient, but I think it was referring to flywheel output on a

test bed where there was no other drain on the output, not even an

alternator or water pump. The best I could get was an estimate for

passenger diesel engines of 22% for “source to wheel” efficiency.

Let’s use that.

Now, for the efficiency of hydrogen

fuel cells. When I started looking at that I was very surprised.

They generate a lot more heat than I had thought. Their equivalent

to a flywheel efficiency is thought to be 60%. But on top of that,

apparently they need pumps and blowers to work so the actual output

efficiency drops to about 45%. Then Wiki says the electrical

controllers, motor and power train all consume some power. Wiki goes

one step farther and factors in the energy requirement to compress

the hydrogen gas fuel and arrives at an overall source to wheel

efficiency of 22%. How is that for coincidence. Sure saved me a

bunch of calculations. The net result. You would need exactly the

same energy equivalent of hydrogen as of gasoline to move the same

mass the same distance.

Gas energy content varies slightly from

batch to batch, source to source but is fairly close to 34.8

Megajoules per liter.

So you would need 34.8 X 3.79 l/gal X

330 X 10E6 = 4.35 x 10E10 Megajoules per day of hydrogen to replace

the gas.

Wiki also tells me that electrolysis of

water is about 60% efficient. So you would need 7.25 x 10E10

Megajoules of electricity a day to make that much hydrogen.

Wiki also tells me that the largest

nuclear power plant in the US has an ouput of 1.25 gigawatts. My

physics text tells me that 1 watt-hour is 3.6 kilojoules, or 1.25

gigawatts for 24 hours is 1.25 X 10E9 X 24 X 3.6 X 10E3 = 1.08 X

10E14 joules or 1.08 X 10E8 Megajoules.

So, 4.35 X 10E10/1.08 X 10E8 = 403

You would need the total output of 403

nuclear power plants to replace gasoline with hydrogen for the US

only.

[kairos]

We already have electric vehicles. Electric trains are an excellent form of transporting heavy goods. The energy can be generated from renewable resources.

[shortlived]

Turkey guts, old tires, used plastic bottles, and municipal sewage can be turned into gasoline too.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/may/featoil

It's not though, which means it's not as easy as the article said it was. The follow ups confirm that. I suspect it is the same with urine power.

It is easy. All you need to do is introduce to electrolysis. Which can be powered by a dynamo, or pv cell.

example

However it is even easier with urine than water

Urea can in principle serve as a hydrogen source for subsequent power generation in fuel cells. Urea present in urine/wastewater can be used directly (though bacteria normally quickly degrade urea.) Producing hydrogen by electrolysis of urea solution occurs at a lower voltage (0.37V) and thus consumes less energy than the electrolysis of water (1.2V)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toyi6efWac0

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[RNG]

We already have electric vehicles. Electric trains are an excellent form of transporting heavy goods. The energy can be generated from renewable resources.

The electric vehicles we have are very limited. Just for city driving, basically. What would the freight rates have to be to pay for running overhead lines from Vancouver to Halifax? All pie in the sky.

[shortlived]

The electric vehicles we have are very limited. Just for city driving, basically. What would the freight rates have to be to pay for running overhead lines from Vancouver to Halifax? All pie in the sky.

It is cheaper than gasoline. I've researched this subject some Canadian put toegether a car in which the federal government gave good mention, but with the creation of petroCanada it was buried.

urine degrades into ammonia

USED SINCE THE MID 1800's.. until.. 1905...

WORLD RECORD FOR DISTANCE cross country!

Better for the car AT HALF THE PRICE!!! NO CARBON!!!

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[kimmy]

Proud to see we're making the world a better place.

What do you mean "we"?

An American company spills American-owned oil from an American-owned pipe-line on American soil in an American jurisdiction... what does this have to do with Canada?

Are we supposed to protect Americans by not selling oil to them any more?

-k

[kimmy]

Electrical storage and electrical generation technologies are advancing at a rapid pace. Electric-powered transportation is already viable for commuter-type transportation, and will become viable for most vehicle travel within our lifetimes. Only the heaviest vehicles and equipment will require fossil fuel. There's no reason to fear that "big oil" will stop it, because the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in.

-k

[Smallc]

We already have electric vehicles. Electric trains are an excellent form of transporting heavy goods. The energy can be generated from renewable resources.

It will take time to build the infrastructure, and that costs money. It just doesn't happen over night.

[shortlived]

It will take time to build the infrastructure, and that costs money. It just doesn't happen over night.

These and other comments are lies. Watch the videos posted above.

There is enough existing capacity in ammonia production to fuel it all at half the current price of gasoline.

There will be no immediate switch anyway, if any switch at all because of the startup for fuel switchover and ownership of feuling stations by the oil and gas industry.

The oil and gas industry isn't interested in supporting cheaper better fuel sources that come from nature and are free for anyone to make themselves.

Just like electric this would take government funding to make happen because of the large scale of the project municipalities could be direct fuel suppliers rather than getting their funds from their gas tax bribes.

It is a harsh reality why are we using corn and other foodcrop to make E90 when we could be using our human wastes to create fuel.. it is scary if you think about it, with increasing food costs, and shortages that our food is being used as fuel instead of our piss.

Scarier even that this technology removes carbon from the air rather than puts it into the air. It also reduces the need to use carbon creating oil to create fertilizer, as the byproduct of this tech this nitrates.

Once the industry finishes milking the public of their money and the oil becomes prohibitively expensive people will wise up.

I expect China and India to be the first to run with it just like they did with biogas.

http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/renewable_energy/ammonia-as-a-transportation-fuel

It is also already regionally distributed ending the refinery monopoly on fuel.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080314070329AA2mgFV

plastics from piss

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-melmac.htm

saltwater to fly jets?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17632-how-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel.html

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[kairos]

It will take time to build the infrastructure, and that costs money. It just doesn't happen over night.

And under the Cons it will never happen until ice freezes over.

[Smallc]

And under the Cons it will never happen until ice freezes over.

It's happening right now.

[Wilber]

We already have electric vehicles. Electric trains are an excellent form of transporting heavy goods. The energy can be generated from renewable resources.

Not enough though, unless you have access to massive amounts of hydro electric power. There won't be a silver bullet to replace oil, it will be a matter of tailoring certain types of power sources for different applications and more efficient use of energy. They are off to a slow start but look for more compound vehicles in future such as plug in hybrids and more diesels.

[shortlived]

Not enough though, unless you have access to massive amounts of hydro electric power. There won't be a silver bullet to replace oil, it will be a matter of tailoring certain types of power sources for different applications and more efficient use of energy. They are off to a slow start but look for more compound vehicles in future such as plug in hybrids and more diesels.

This could be solved with another buried technology the government has muzzled by regularing it away due to lobbying from the major nuclear industry players

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/resilience/2013/02/20/measuring-the-resilience-of-micro-nuclear-energy/

you hear about this but then the government shuts it down and it more or less disappears from the public mind as quickly as it entered it

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2011/04/27/micro-nuclear-plant-nunavut/

--this technology changes the status quo, its too good for the public, we must reserve it for military use.

Qulliq Energy, the company that provides electricity to the area, has also analyzed a 10 MW hydroelectric power plant as a possible solution to the problem, but the prices were huge: from $200 to $500 million, with a lifespan of 40 years, while the same power output from a micro nuclear plant that lasts the same costs only $15 million.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/170482802/are-mini-reactors-the-future-of-nuclear-power

There is no reason Canada cannot do this, and make Canadian jobs, and stimulate a Canadian economy, as opposed to buying them from the US when they build them. Oh but sleeping Canada won't be able to because the US will patent it, the only recourses is using decades old technologies that contribute to decade old problems, although microplants do exist that are expired IP now, the newest ones will be the most efficient, and Japan and the US are going to own that IP.

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[kimmy]

For the curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#As_a_fuel

However, I still think that electric vs internal combustion is a no-brainer.

-k

[kimmy]

This could be solved with another buried technology the government has muzzled by regularing it away due to lobbying from the major nuclear industry players

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

The greenies would absolutely load their pants with rage at the idea of mini-nuclear reactors proliferating everywhere.

-k

[shortlived]

The greenies would absolutely load their pants with rage at the idea of mini-nuclear reactors proliferating everywhere.

-k

no reason for that micro nukes are safe. environmentalists will cling to finding a problem with any type of industry if it ain't planting trees to hug, anyway.

its just a scary name. this technology is way safer than oil, and way less destructive than hydroelectric by destroying natural water sheds and it doesn't kill birds like wind power.

None the less I'm not concerned what other people think anyway. It is an improvement on the past and that is all that matters.

The sooner the big ones due to get shut down stay that way and are replaced with newer, safer and more efficient technologies the better off we will be.

I suspect though the old plants will be replaced with these smaller ones running multiple plants on the site of the old reactors.

I am fairly environmental, and I have to say I think these things run laps around some of the technologies being used today. They are a vast improvement on older technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

we need repacements for things like pickering, building new ULTRA expensive plants is not the solution, the solution si building microplants that are safer, without needing to destroy previous technology such as dismantleing plants.

http://www.durhamregion.com/oshawa/article/1251056

we shouldn't be "eliminating" energy sources, we should be upgrading and modernizing them to 0 emissions 0 risk models.

See that the Chinese are buildings Canada's nuclear plants.. we could be building microplants here in Canada.

AEC could have been spearheading the construction of those plants.

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[ReeferMadness]

None of this is true. Without wealth created by a society that has access to cheap energy we would have much shorter lifespans and worse problems with the environment.

Sorry.

It's all true. Sorry.

We can't power the world with magic fairy dust. When renewables become cost effective they will be used. Until then the choice is either: use the fossil fuels we have or starve in the dark.

They are cost-effective and would be in use today if fossil fuels had to bear the full cost of their use. Our kids will pay the price so that we can have cheap gas for the hummer.

[TimG]

They are cost-effective and would be in use today if fossil fuels had to bear the full cost of their use. Our kids will pay the price so that we can have cheap gas for the hummer.

You are grossly exaggerating the harms caused by fossil fuels and underestimating the benefits. More expensive energy would ripple through the economy, reducing growth and incomes. This, in turn, would require that various social programs be cut because the tax revenue was not coming in. IOW - the harms caused by not using fossil fuels would far out strip whatever negatives you see today. This brutal math is not going to change anytime soon. Edited April 1, 2013 by TimG