Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas

[shortlived]

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.

You are reading from a script and really have no evidence to support your claims.

wrong and wrong man, you are so wrong.

please tell me your posts have become a joke, and you are just seeking to entertain.

the only correct part is likely the end, not the math, but not likely to change anytime soon en masse. More people are adopting the alternative technologies though, you can't change the masses overnight without the government forcing it, they are already invested.

http://hydrofuel.ca/

$1300 for 10-60% energy savings on our vehicle.

say your average family spends $5000 on gas in a year, that works out to $500 to about $2750 in savings a year.

meaning within 3 years this tech would pay for itself at the lowest efficiency, and within half a year at the highest.

so why isn't it going to be done?

municipal fleets could fuel their vehicles off the piss of residents totally removing fleet fueling costs.

same goes for other government fleets and major vehicle chains like taxi's and bell, utilities etc..

oh and it extends the life of the vehicle and doesn't produce carbon..

SO why isn't it done?

anyone?

because they are spending your money, is that a good enough answer?

got an old microwave...

Do you have any idea how much water is used to process oil sands oil? That water is fuel all by itself..

more than 170 million cubic meters of water ...

http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/water

worse it gets stored in holdings lakes if all goes well ... meanwhile water used by HHO geneators... doesn't create a toxic waste issue.

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[Spiderfish]

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.

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that new reactors are much safer than reactors of the past. the issue environmentalists have with nuclear technology mainly comes from the waste they produce. I don't care how small you make a nuclear reactor, producing energy from fissionalble materials generates waste. there's no way you would sell this idea to the enviro crowd... not a chance.

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

I agree. this goes for clean coal technology, increase in natural gas as an energy source, and responsible fossil fuel exploration, development, and consumption as well. Progress is going to have to be a synergy of improving current technology and energy sources, with exploring and developing new ideas into the future. Some of the ideas you have put forth appear to have some potential, and it will be exciting going into the future to see the progress we make. But we can't just flip the switch on current energy sources, and it will take decades to develop new technology.

[roy baty]

Ok Shortlived, we get it. There are alternatives to fossil fuels. The problem is that environmental radicals want us to blindly move off fossil fuels immediately and overnight regardless of cost and economic impact it may have on our families and government. Radical environmental mentality is not only unrealistic but dangerous. Making alternative sources viable using short and long term initiatives over the next 4-5 decades is the responsible approach. Greenies and non-Greenies alike just don't seem to be able to agree on any middle ground or are willing to compromise to get there and that is the unfortunate thing in all of this.

[Spiderfish]

Cities are very capable of feeding themselves if they organized to do so, such as growing musrhooms indoors, underground, plants on all types of green grow areas, roofs, gutters, cities are more than capable of feeding themselves. Culturally they are misaligned to do so though.

Growing plants underground hydroponically would take an enormous amount of energy. "Green" roofs are becoming popular, however what most people might not know is that you still have to install a waterproof roof membrane under the vegetation to protect the building. this is typically a 2-ply modified bituminous membrane applied with hot asphalt over rigid polyiso or EPS insulation...both made from petroleum products.

[eyeball]

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that new reactors are much safer than reactors of the past. the issue environmentalists have with nuclear technology mainly comes from the waste they produce. I don't care how small you make a nuclear reactor, producing energy from fissionalble materials generates waste. there's no way you would sell this idea to the enviro crowd... not a chance.

That's not exactly true, what you have to sell me is a corruption proof regulatory regime that ensures waste managers do their jobs.

Good luck with that.

[Spiderfish]

That's not exactly true, what you have to sell me is a corruption proof regulatory regime that ensures waste managers do their jobs.

Good luck with that.

So we're in agreement then...it would be a hard-sell.

[Argus]

Agreed - if we accept the use of fossil fuels, there will be risks. And environmental costs. And health costs. And if we stopped subsidizing the cost of fossil fuels and instead properly accounted for the risks and costs into the price of the fuel, the problem would fix itself. If we suddenly had gasoline at $10 or $15 a gallon, you'd be surprised how fast people would use less. And entrepreneurs would find alternatives.

Hello world-wide great depression. Hello collapse of governments and rise of extremists. Hello, famine and pestilence. My, poverty, how you've grown!

Anyone who seriously suggests getting rid of oil any time in the near future is, basically, not sane.

[Argus]

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.

More loony conspiracy theories. I'm sure the oil industry has no interest in finding other sources of power but everyone else does, and if there was anything available that was at all economical we'd be hearing a lot more about it.

[PIK]

We have dams that are hardly used any more, the cleanest cheapest form and it just sits there letting all water go thru and making nothing off it. IMO We have made a bigger footprint just to keep the greenies sleeping at night.

[eyeball]

So we're in agreement then...it would be a hard-sell.

It would be but just not for the simplistic 'greenies are stoopid' excuses that are usually bandied about around here.

[PIK]

So what is better a leak every now and again in a pipeline or a tanker on the rocks or a train leaves the trtacks. Oil is not leaving us anytime soon and the greenies need to realize that and let nature takes it course.

[eyeball]

Speaking of courses, my objection to the Northern Gateway pipeline is that it intends to cross around 1000 fish-bearing watercourses and Ottawa just gutted fisheries protection rules. So, it's just like the nuclear waste issue, show me a corruption proof regulatory regime that ensures waste fish managers do their jobs and you're on.

And just so you know I burn through anywhere from 500 to a 1500 litres of fuel a week depending on the season.

[Spiderfish]

It would be but just not for the simplistic 'greenies are stoopid' excuses that are usually bandied about around here.

I don't believe I made such an implication.

I understand the concern over nuclear waste containment and the difficluties it presents. I also share some of your concerns with the NGP. Moving oil by rail is not without some significant risks, same with ships. Windmills are useless and the maintenance they require makes them expensive and unreliable, solar is making gains, but is prohibitavely expensive up front, and the sun doesnt always shine, hydro dams do every bit as much damage to fish habitat than any oil spill ever will. Yet the demaand for energy increases exponentially year after year. It's a tricky problem, for sure.

New technology and development of new energy sources in the future will certainly play a part in the solution to this problem, but it's only one part of the equation. We have made huge gains in safe and clean extraction, movement, and consumption of current energy sources thanks to technology, but this too is not enough. Conservation and efficient use of energy we currently create is a large part of the equation, and technology is helping with this as well. No single approach is going to solve this problem, and it's not going to happen over night.

It's too simplistic to say we have to stop moving oil around, or we have to stop consuming fossil fuels immediately, unless we're prepared to destroy our economy, watch people starve and freeze to death, and end our very way of life. I don't see a lot of evidence suggesting people are ready to take that step.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Spiderfish

[eyeball]

I don't believe I made such an implication.

Fair comment.

It's too simplistic to say we have to stop moving oil around, or we have to stop consuming fossil fuels immediately, unless we're prepared to destroy our economy, watch people starve and freeze to death, and end our very way of life. I don't see a lot of evidence suggesting people are ready to take that step.

I don't want to destroy our economy anymore than you but the reality is we are destroying the environment, we are using up it's natural capital and we are watching people freeze and die because there's not enough of it to spread around. What we're not doing is building real institutions of accountability and transparency that check the greed and avarice behind so many of the decisions that lead to this.

I see a lot of evidence suggesting people are resisting having to take that step.

[CPCFTW]

I would think the most feasible alternative to our over-reliance on fossil fuels is to create an infrastructure of electric recharge stations that is comparable to the current gas station infrastructure.

Tesla Motors is hoping to start selling electric cars in the 30k price range in 1-2 yrs I believe. The private sector saves the day again!

Fyi the founder of Tesla is part-Canadian and attended Queen's U for 2yrs.

[RNG]

I would think the most feasible alternative to our over-reliance on fossil fuels is to create an infrastructure of electric recharge stations that is comparable to the current gas station infrastructure.

About the best recharging time I'm aware of is 8 hours. OK for commuting and shopping trips, but visiting Grannie in the next province would require many long stops or a hell of an extension cord.

Yes, electric cars are a good step, but they are not a solution to all need for oil and it's products.

[Spiderfish]

About the best recharging time I'm aware of is 8 hours. OK for commuting and shopping trips, but visiting Grannie in the next province would require many long stops or a hell of an extension cord.

Yes, electric cars are a good step, but they are not a solution to all need for oil and it's products.

Not to metion the infrastructure and electicity production in North America is already being pushed to it's max. With all the environmental resistance to any new high-voltage lines being erected (no pun intended), and the requirement for enormous amounts of additional low-cost electricity that would be required to make a plan like this feasible, it would end up being more of a environmental hot-potato than the status quo. It sounds like a good idea until people start seeing the new coal or gas fired power plants or nuclear plants being constructed.

[GostHacked]

So what is better a leak every now and again in a pipeline or a tanker on the rocks or a train leaves the trtacks. Oil is not leaving us anytime soon and the greenies need to realize that and let nature takes it course.

I am sure using 'let nature take its course' is not lost on the greenies.

[GostHacked]

I would think the most feasible alternative to our over-reliance on fossil fuels is to create an infrastructure of electric recharge stations that is comparable to the current gas station infrastructure.

Tesla Motors is hoping to start selling electric cars in the 30k price range in 1-2 yrs I believe. The private sector saves the day again!

Fyi the founder of Tesla is part-Canadian and attended Queen's U for 2yrs.

There is the big problem of electric and hybrid cars in the winter months. The hybrids are using more fuel in the winter months negating the benefits of owning a hybrid vehicle.

[shortlived]

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that new reactors are much safer than reactors of the past. the issue environmentalists have with nuclear technology mainly comes from the waste they produce. I don't care how small you make a nuclear reactor, producing energy from fissionalble materials generates waste.

No actually it doesn't create waste it creates byproduct which can be reused in other applications. However currently it is just stored. All that stored nuclear 'waste' can actually be reused.

The issue is, it is cheaper to just use new uranium and store the old rods and materials in water. Through processing and reprocessing the materials actually can be put to use in other technologies.

The real issue with all these highly destructive technologies like oil and nuclear is that they are being allowed the cheapest out and that is simply to put it in a holding area which becomes a risk on leakage. The real solution is forcing them to recycle and use the byproduct until it is in a manageable form. We need to attune industrial cycles to be whole. Suplur is a good example, CO2 is another. The industries are only going for the cash crop, all else is pointless. If it wern't about cashcrops but rather environmental safety, efficiency and waste reduction there would be a dramatic shift in what materials were used for day to day living.

there's no way you would sell this idea to the enviro crowd... not a chance.

I agree. this goes for clean coal technology, increase in natural gas as an energy source, and responsible fossil fuel exploration, development, and consumption as well. Progress is going to have to be a synergy of improving current technology and energy sources, with exploring and developing new ideas into the future. Some of the ideas you have put forth appear to have some potential, and it will be exciting going into the future to see the progress we make. But we can't just flip the switch on current energy sources, and it will take decades to develop new technology.

Its cleaner than oil and that is all that matters. Without a meltdown risk environmentalists really have nothing to complain about with lithium core systems, it is about as safe as laptop batteries.

You can say time and time again, oil is cheaper, but that is only because you don't add in the costs to the environment, and health. Saying but we can make a product to fix that, why should I have to pay for what I had before you ruined it? You should be paying me for ruining it not me paying you to fix it.

Edited April 1, 2013 by shortlived

[ReeferMadness]

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

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The technology is mostly there and advancing; but the infrastructure will cost billions. In this era of "good government = no government", who will prime the pump?

[ReeferMadness]

It would be but just not for the simplistic 'greenies are stoopid' excuses that are usually bandied about around here.

And not just around here. Industry and its right-wing camp followers have successfully stereotyped anyone who speaks up for the environment as a fuzzy-headed sentimentalist who cares more for marmots and owls than people's well-being. They've convinced themselves (and the majority of people) that the economy pays for everything and that a healthy environment relies on a strong economy. When you break it down, the reasoning is so bizarre, you can hardly believe anyone would make the claim.

First, environmentalism isn't just about marmots and owls, it's about clean air and fresh water and ecosystems so intricate that we're only beginning to understand them. It's about figuring out how close we are to the verge of collapse of the web of life and how that will affect the planet and its inhabitants, human and non-human. It's about having the humility to accept that our ability to affect the planet's systems may be rapidly exceeding our ability to control the results. We've already seen local disasters (like the infamous smogs over London and LA). Must we wait for a global catastrophe before we take action to limit our impacts globally?

Second, let's talk about the economy, that great god before which we must sacrifice everything in the quest for more powerful pickup trucks with butt warmers and mobile phones with slightly better touchscreens. Even as the economy mistreats the people who feed it, casting them into lower-paying work with no benefits or security, its proponents scream ever louder for obeisance. But what is the economy? Well, the primary measure is GDP; and GDP is defined as the amount of money we collectively spend on stuff. It doesn't matter whether that stuff is education or video games or coffins or fighter jets or haircuts. It doesn't matter whether the stuff makes us better people or wastes our time or just clutters our houses. It doesn't matter if the stuff makes us happy or miserable. We just need to spend more every year so that the GDP goes up.

The arguments for a strong economy are circular ones. We need to spend more money to keep the economy strong. We need a strong economy so people will have jobs. People need jobs so they can spend more money. People need to spend money to keep the economy strong. And so on.

Environmentalists are the realists in this equation. Economy boosters are the fuzzy-headed ones.

[GostHacked]

Well said ReeferMadness, very well said.

[Accountability Now]

Environmentalists are the realists in this equation. Economy boosters are the fuzzy-headed ones.

Yin and Yang, Right wing and left wing, environmentalist and economist. If one of these dominate then all goes sideways. As long as both sides are in play then you get the balance you need. As such I think both need to be in the equation even the fuzzy headed ones from both sides.

[Guest]

The arguments for a strong economy are circular ones. We need to spend more money to keep the economy strong. We need a strong economy so people will have jobs. People need jobs so they can spend more money. People need to spend money to keep the economy strong. And so on.

Environmentalists are the realists in this equation. Economy boosters are the fuzzy-headed ones.

Assuming the population keeps growing at the current rate, and immigration stays at the current rate, where in your circular paragraph above would you suggest placing the stopper?

What do you mean by realist and fuzzy headed? It seems to me that those who think we can support 7 billion people with only one planet without having some pretty devastating effects on it are the fuzzy headed ones.

Understand, the above statement does not mean I dump waste paint down the drain, or toss litter from my car window, or eat shark's fin soup, or subscribe to any theory that involves rhino horn and libido. Just because someone does not see a way to achieve the (to me) fuzzy headed environmental goals you seek does not make them any less an environmentalist. In fact, I would put my footprint up against anyone who lives in a similar location.

It's very easy to write this:

First, environmentalism isn't just about marmots and owls, it's about clean air and fresh water and ecosystems so intricate that we're only beginning to understand them. It's about figuring out how close we are to the verge of collapse of the web of life and how that will affect the planet and its inhabitants, human and non-human. It's about having the humility to accept that our ability to affect the planet's systems may be rapidly exceeding our ability to control the results. We've already seen local disasters (like the infamous smogs over London and LA). Must we wait for a global catastrophe before we take action to limit our impacts globally?

I don't disagree. But with all due respect, so what? We will wait for a global catastrophe and even then we won't do anything about it. Environmentalism on a planetary scale is, above all else, about co-operation. You see the problem?