| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coachg
Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3550
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | As for China, it has more coal fired plants under construction than the rest of the world combined. Those plants are powering its EVs. Perhaps you all think that is progress. |
China also happens to be producing nearly 4 times as much solar power and wind power as the U.S. along with being the leading manufacturer of both wind turbines & solar panels. China is making plans far beyond 30 years. I'm not against the oil industry as obviously we are & will be dependent on oil for a while. We need a well thought out, phased in plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.
The problem I see is there are plenty of people like you willing to let China dominate the renewal energy industry by bending over for the oil industry. Thankfully we have a system to fix that problem; it is called an election.
Coachg |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coachg wrote: | | The problem I see is there are plenty of people like you willing to let China dominate the renewal energy industry by bending over for the oil industry. Thankfully we have a system to fix that problem; it is called an election. |
I'll leave the disparaging comments to the "educators" and stick to the facts. China gets 5% of it's energy needs from renewables, 60% from coal and 30% from oil and gas. Yet you assert that "they dominate the renewal (sic) energy industry". That's akin to asserting that Bangladesh dominates the fashion industry. You are confusing cheap manufacturing with innovation. Ironically, most of those Chinese solar panels we so proudly put on rooftops to broadcast our green credentials, were manufactured using coal power.
To suggest that maintaining sensible policies on oil and gas stifles innovation on renewables is absurd. Governments have been throwing incentives and crafting legislation supportive of renewables for decades. Yet here we are, still largely reliant on oil and gas for the simple reason that the "green" alternatives are more expensive and less reliable. Like it or not, we will require huge quantities of oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Cancelling the XL Pipeline will make that future more polluting and expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad that mrgybe acknowledged the issue of Chinese solar panels, because there is a bit of a lesson there. It's noteworthy that China was quite adept at becoming a market leader in the manufacture of solar panels.
I think that coachg better understands the challenges we face as a nation moving into an increasingly technological future. Even the oil industry will need to step up and address the growing requirements to significantly reduce untoward emissions and pollution in their operations. While we will continue to need oil and gas for many years to come, we must do it in a responsible way to protect our environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did I say that the buggy whip guy would ignore all critiques and return to talking points, which he calls "facts"? Just what we need is another stable genius making up the facts. Like NW, and like many of his previous posts, this guy just makes up shit and is too cowardly to actually cite sources. He's above all that, because he worked as a flak in the cook the world business.
The most egregious example of specious reasoning is the idea, put forth above, that somehow developing coal tar and pumping it through the XL pipeline is superior to coal, or will somehow offset China's use of coal. Huh? Does anyone consider that a valid argument?
What buggy whip has spun is that Canadian coal tar is actually petcoke, a fuel that some sources say has a CO2 generation 53% higher than coal.
| Quote: | Petcoke is like coal, but dirtier.
A ton of petcoke yields on average 53.6 percent more CO2 than a ton of coal. The proven tar sands reserves of Canada will yield roughly 5 billion tons of petcoke – enough to fully fuel 111 U.S. coal plants to 2050.Jan 17, 2013 |
Of course generating the fuel requires strip mining the wilderness in Canada, and extracting the fuel with methods that threaten water quality. The argument that this fuel is somehow superior is preposterous. Here is a simple chart showing the CO2 generated by different fossil fuels--along with citations.
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol) 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11
https://worldbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Freedom_Chapter6.pdf
This article calculates the CO2 signature per BTU for Canadian coal tar at 222.88
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2013/01/OCI.Petcoke.FINALSCREEN.pdf
Now lest buggy whip resort to the old "we'll have to wear sack cloth and abandon our way of life" argument, look at natural gas--a little more than half the carbon signal of the fuel transported by XL. I have supported fracking as long as it is well regulated, as an alternative described in some of the citations as the necessary transition fuel. Not petcoke.
Of course the buggy whip guy ignores the impacts of the project on water quality--with 1000 stream crossings and an industry that ignores maintenance, a fairly significant oversight. Not to mention the impacts of extraction and burning. No subsidy?
Then there is the impact of crossing the three Indian reservations. Wait, wasn't that supposed to be sovereign land? That issue continues to be under litigation.
| Quote: | On November 17, 2020, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Fort Belknap Indian Community, represented by the Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel, filed a federal lawsuit against the United States Department of Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over their issuing of the KXL permit. Among other things, the complaint describes:
Although, the pipeline’s proposed path crosses the plaintiff tribes’ homelands, the tribes have not been consulted as required by law and DOI policy.
In granting the right-of-way, the BLM failed to analyze and uphold the United States’ treaty obligations to protect the Tribes lands and natural resources. The government failed to even evaluate an alternate route to avoids tribal treaty lands.
The government’s analysis does not meaningfully address how an influx of out-of-state construction workers will affect the health, welfare, and safety of tribal members, and in particular Native women and children.
The agencies have not considered the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on either health and safety or the global oil markets.
The 2019 supplemental environmental impact statement has numerous issues and shortcomings. Even its maps do not give enough detail to show impacts on Indian lands.
In their permit application, TransCanada agreed to abide by tribal laws and regulation, which they have failed to do.
NARF Staff Attorney Matthew Campbell explained, “Before we allow a foreign company to build another pipeline to haul dirty tar sands across any American soil, we should be taking a hard look at the possible impact on American land, water, health, and safety. For tribal lands, the treaties absolutely require this sort of review. In issuing the Keystone XL permit with shoddy and superficial analysis, the federal government not only didn’t do its job, it did not follow the law.” |
No subsidy? That is actually a complicated issue. A foreign company must pay fair market value for private land that it condemns as right of way. It is, however, not clear that the developer has paid for the public land that it has used as right of way.
Expect a quick return to talking points or ranting about Wikipedia. Not facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coachg
Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3550
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | I'll leave the disparaging comments to the "educators" and stick to the facts. China gets 5% of it's energy needs from renewables, 60% from coal and 30% from oil and gas. |
I always wondered what kind of person would consider a free & fair election to be a “disparaging comment”. I guess between you & Jan 6, 2021 we now know.
Sticking to the facts. China produces over ¼ of the world’s solar energy & that lead is growing daily. China produces over 1/3 of the world’s wind energy & the lead is growing daily. They are the leading producers of both wind turbines & solar panels. If that is not dominating the industry, then please tell, what is? Korea & Canada also are outproducing the U.S. in solar panels.
I do support sensible policies on oil and gas, however my definition of sensible is different than your definition. For example, to suggest that getting “free” land & special permits from the feds is “not” government support is absurd. Same as farm subsidies & welfare; no difference.
Coachg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Volume of greenhouse gasses emitted to produce solar panels used for charging an ev at home for 20 years = ?
vs.
Volume of greenhouse gasses emitted by driving a fossil fuel powered vehicle for 20 years = ?
I suspect the former is less than the latter. But I'm no oil industry expert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coachg wrote: | | I always wondered what kind of person would consider a free & fair election to be a “disparaging comment”. I guess between you & Jan 6, 2021 we now know. |
.......and there he goes again. Seemingly incapable of expressing a different point of view in a civil manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coachg wrote: | | I always wondered what kind of person would consider a free & fair election to be a “disparaging comment”. I guess between you & Jan 6, 2021 we now know. |
.......and there he goes again. Seemingly incapable of expressing a different point of view in a civil manner. |
Did I say that buggy whip would ignore rebuttals of his nonsense? Is anyone surprised that he was unable to find the proper thread to rant about Keystone? Is anyone surprised that he would attack someone as uncivil—and miss the irony therein completely?
A bully and a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | Mrgybe is regurgitating his criticisms of Obama on Biden. No new material here.... |
If you have a different view, why don't you articulate it? Perhaps making up things I have said is easier for you. |
In 2011, you wrote this regarding the Obama and the Keystone XL Pipeline:
| Quote: | There are more than 20,000 miles of pipeline already crossing the Ogallala Aquifer. The State Dept. reviewed the Keystone pipeline project twice and found no significant environmental concerns. In response, the oil industry spent billions to handle the heavy crude from the pipeline. "Celebrities" protest outside the WH, and the Administration delays any decision until after the 2012 election.
It would be difficult to find a more egregious example of an Administration bowing to political pressure. A commenter in the WSJ summed it up perfectly........."In 50 years of following politics, I cannot think of a more transparent instance of someone's placing political self interest ahead of national interest." Precisely. |
We have been through this before is what I am saying. I can search for your disparaging comments about restrooms for Trans folks if you would like. But, we have all heard it before.
I don't disagree on the Keystone Pipeline. It has continued to be a political hot button issue. Trump's outspoken disdain of scientific study did nothing to change that either. Biden ran on this issue and he is following through.
What perplexes me about your posts is why you insist, sometimes, in lumping seemingly unrelated issues such as the Keystone Pipeline with LGBT rights. All that does is to help define your arguments as based on a conservative viewpoint rather than an informed opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
