Trudeau government at pains to explain Pacific Northwest LNG

[Derek 2.0]

Nope, bigger than that: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

Nice......but it doesn't account for the amount of carbon/energy used in its extraction and refinement of the given energy source........Pacific LNG will pollute slightly more then the Syncrude oil sands and the largest coal plant in Canada.

[msj]

So what?

On a net basis, all things considered from cradle to grave, or from exploration to emissions if you will, less GHG will be produced.

[msj]

But if you want to shut this project down for environmental reasons then all the power to you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope, bigger than that: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

That's for production and transport in the U.S., not Canada ! Plus it is not metric.

[?Impact]

Pacific LNG will pollute slightly more then the Syncrude oil sands and the largest coal plant in Canada.

Good comparison, all you are missing is how much downstream energy do they supply? That is very important because it addresses efficiency.

[msj]

That's for production and transport in the U.S., not Canada ! Plus it is not metric.

Do you think the ratios change when converted?

Do you think they change when they cross the border?

[Derek 2.0]

So what?

You wanted to speak to the bigger picture.......a modern VW hybrid, recycling dinosaur bones from Northern Alberta, still pollutes less than 1977 Ford camper special on natural gas..........

[msj]

Good comparison, all you are missing is how much downstream energy do they supply? That is very important because it addresses efficiency.

Yes, efficiency is what I'm talking about. Thanks.

[msj]

You wanted to speak to the bigger picture.......a modern VW hybrid, recycling dinosaur bones from Northern Alberta, still pollutes less than 1977 Ford camper special on natural gas..........

Fine, purposely misrepresent the discussion.

I shall move on now.

[Derek 2.0]

Good comparison, all you are missing is how much downstream energy do they supply? That is very important because it addresses efficiency.

No it doesn't........a tanker full of fuel from Kinder Morgan could end the precursor to the plastics used in making recycling boxes in a factory powered by solar........inversely, an equal sized tanker of LNG could be used to fuel unit trains and dump trucks used in the process of mining coal.......

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you think the ratios change when converted?

Do you think they change when they cross the border?

Yes, especially when they are not allowed to cross the border by Obama.

[msj]

Hence the need for carbon taxes to act as an incentive/disincentive to move the world towards renewables/hydro/NG/nuclear.

[msj]

Yes, especially when they are not allowed to cross the border by Obama.

I think you have no idea what those link link to.

[Derek 2.0]

Fine, purposely misrepresent the discussion.

I shall move on now.

No, it is you misrepresenting the discussion, as cited, this LNG plant will pollute more then the largest oilsand producer and coal fired power plant in Canada...that is factual until proven wrong........you are the one that started dropping grade 9 science class tidbits with regards to British thermal units...

Edited September 29, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[?Impact]

No it doesn't........a tanker full of fuel from Kinder Morgan could end the precursor to the plastics used in making recycling boxes in a factory powered by solar........inversely, an equal sized tanker of LNG could be used to fuel unit trains and dump trucks used in the process of mining coal.......

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.

Edited September 29, 2016 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you have no idea what those link link to.

You didn't get it....the ratios and costs change when the U.S. tells Canada "hell no" for pipelines and other energy projects. Canadian data, please.

[msj]

Ok, sure.

I'm talking about how much CO2 is produced from coal, oil, gas, NG etc.

And also how much is produced to generate a kWh of electricity.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm talking about how much CO2 is produced from coal, oil, gas, NG etc.

And also how much is produced to generate a kWh of electricity.

OK....does that mean Canadian data about CO₂ produced is not readily available ?

[?Impact]

OK....does that mean Canadian data about CO₂ produced is not readily available ?

Get it from Environment Canada.

[msj]

Does it change for the exchange rate?

I'm talking about efficiency and you guys [no not you ?Impact] have to dumb this discussion down to this level?

Seriously?

Edited September 29, 2016 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Get it from Environment Canada.

Does it change for the exchange rate?

I'm talking about efficiency and you guys [no not you ?Impact] have to dumb this discussion down to this level?

Seriously?

I am serious too...for instance...."Net Summer Capacity" is not the same for the U.S. and Canada. This is another case of using reference data that is not accurate for Canada. Is it too much to ask for Canadian data when discussing Canadian energy projects ?

Edited September 29, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

Then better look it up for China and Japan because that is where the NG is going to be consumed.

That's the bigger picture: displace coal in China and arguably nuclear in Japan (nuclear is not as efficient as people let on when exploration to emissions are considered) and the net GHG is reduced.

Yes, will require the use of carbon taxes too. Around the world.

That's what I'm talking about, not just what may happen in little BC.

Nice framing of the issue there though.

Edited September 29, 2016 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Then better look it up for China and Japan because that is where the NG is going to be consumed.

I'll believe that when it actually happens. This project should be funnier and more expensive than the natural gas power plant fiasco in Ontario.

[?Impact]

I'll believe that when it actually happens. This project should be funnier and more expensive than the natural gas power plant fiasco in Ontario.

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.

Edited September 29, 2016 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

I know....that's the fiasco part. Other nations are already exporting LNG, while Canada has lots of "projects":

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/natural-gas/5683