WhoWee said:Isn't the EPA in the process of closing down some of the Gulf refineries?
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/160182
Why not develop a new refinery somewhere on the Great Lakes?
CaptFirePanda said:The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.
Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.
I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO2 emissions by country.
I can only find 2008 data at the moment. Back then (metric tons CO2 per capita):CaptFirePanda said:Please show me what your source is for this. Everything I find does not support this at all.
CaptFP likely meant to direct to me.WhoWee said:Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.
WhoWee said:Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.
mheslep said:I can only find 2008 data at the moment. Back then (metric tons CO2 per capita):
1. Qatar 53.5
2. UAE 34.6
...
8. Luxemburg 21.9
...
11. Australia 18.9
12. US 17.5
...
15 Canada 16.4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Looking further back US emissions per person declined steadily from 1997 up through 2008.
More recently I'm ~relatively sure I read that with the ramp up of the tar sand oil production Canada nudged higher than the US in 2010. Unless and until I can find recent data disregard. I do have the energy use per person (World Bank) data showing Canada uses more energy per head than the US, so one would expect ...
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...idim=country:CAN:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en
SixNein said:I think renewable energy will look better and better as we head into the future. At a certain point, the economics of renewable energy will look better than fossil fuel. In addition, continuously rising gas prices is going to inject a great deal of poison into the political process. And only God knows how the global economy will respond. My guess is a lot of demand destruction.
The simple fact that we are discussing tar sands and shale should indicate a lifestyle change up ahead.
aquitaine said:Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.
What makes tar sands particularly odious is that the energy you get out in the end, per unit carbon dioxide, is poor. It's equivalent to burning coal in your automobile.
aquitaine said:Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.
edward said:Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show
There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.
I agree in the sense that renewables are unlikely to match the performance of fossil fuels in our lifetime. But fossil fuels are limited, and we are beginning to bump into that reality.
In a decade or two, we may very well be having this same discussion on coal. There is a huge demand placed on coal, and eventually we are going to hit limits. People who believe that we can ride exponential growth rates forever are out of their minds.
Hanson is a noted climate scientist who knows about the impact of CO2 once it gets in the atmosphere. But why credit Hanson with any of the details about oil sand production? Is he also now a petroleum engineer?edward said:Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show
There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.
edward said:I was under the impression the delay was to insure the safety of the Ogallala sp? aquifer.
The old refineries at Whiting Indiana which once supplied most of the middle west are being modernized to refine the Canadian oil... I do have a problem with the oil going to a Texas port. It could end up anywhere, including China.
edward said:Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show
There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.
CaptFirePanda said:The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.
Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.
I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO2 emissions by country.
edward said:Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show
There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.
SixNein said:I agree. There is a perspective on climate change to be considered; however, from my understanding, this forum doesn't have any kind of moderator who is an expert on the topic. So I'll avoid the discussion for now.
Sounds right but then the difference in 2008 emissions between the US and Canada was only 6.7%.CaptFirePanda said:Because emissions associated with the oil sands account for only 6.5% of Canada's overall emissions ...
WhoWee said:Actually, it's a banned topic - that's why it won't be discussed - isn't it?
His remarks seem inflammatory, at best. The fact that bitumen can be marketed with such a relatively low return on energy speaks more to demand than anything else. The oil sands are not produced because they have a low return on energy, they are produced because demand makes them marketable.
mheslep said:Sounds right but then the difference in 2008 emissions between the US and Canada was only 6.7%.
Topher925 said:How exactly are his remarks inflammatory? He's only addressing the impact of harvesting non-conventional sources of fossil fuels, not the motivations behind it. No matter which way you look at it, refining oil from tar sands has significantly greater negative consequences than refining conventional crude oil.
Yes I'm thinking the average transportation distance traveled per person is large in the US and especially Canada compared to much of the world.CaptFirePanda said:...
Also, the fact that Canada is a colder country in general accounts for much of the reason why the per capita numbers are similar. Canada is also ~5% larger by area and much less densely populated.
Illuminating chart in several ways. First, it shows how calling the tar sands 'dirty' compared to all other oil is a myth. Second, 20-35% of oil energy is lost before it hits my tank, where another 80% is lost before arriving at the wheels? I had previously seen 10-12% loss at the refinery, but 20-35% in total? Bring on the EV's.CaptFirePanda said:This diagram:
...
shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
SixNein said:I agree. There is a perspective on climate change to be considered; however, from my understanding, this forum doesn't have any kind of moderator who is an expert on the topic. So I'll avoid the discussion for now.
WhoWee said:Will that still be the case after the Idiana site is retrofitted? (from your link)
Topher925 said:Discussion of climate change is in fact band on the forum. I've got the infractions to prove it. I don't necessarily agree with the policy but its not my forum.
Jack21222 said:While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned.
Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.
CaptFirePanda said:Inflammatory because his comparison to coal is quite wrong. Also, looking through many of his other statements, he is certainly fictionalizing/exaggerating things.
This diagram:
shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1It depends on how you measure it. Industry likes to use a so-called well-to-wheel approach, which takes into account all emissions created by a barrel of oil from finding it and pumping it out of the ground to burning it in a gas tank. By that measure, oilsands crude creates between 10 and 45 per cent more carbon dioxide than other crudes, depending on the source.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=527There’s no doubt that fuel made from tar sands produces more CO2 than those made from conventional crudes – but not three times more, about 20% more on average according to the International Energy Agency.
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1...a well-to-tank comparison, which excludes burning the final fuel. By that measure, a barrel of oilsands oil creates three times more greenhouse gas than a barrel pumped from the ground.
aquitaine said:They never will match fossil fuels because of fundamental limitations on energy density and reliability. The only two exceptions to that, geothermal and hydro, are not portable and are geographically limited. Solar depends on whether or not the sun is out and how good the weather is, but even on a sunny day the energy density is extremely low. Wind is pretty much useless, it too has extremely low energy density and is even less reliable. When the steam engine became prevalent in the second half of the 19th century sails quickly disappeared for anything other than recreation, and it was like that for a reason. Even today's recreational sailing craft usually have gas or diesel engines on them.
Coal usage will only continue and even grow if we don't go with nuclear power. Hydro and geo are great, but not everywhere has equal access to them because of geography. Germany has proven this decisively. I submit http://depletedcranium.com/terrified-of-nuclear-energy-germany-goes-for-fossil-fuel/, an analysis of what is REALLY going on in Germany following their unfortunate decision. They're building 26 new coal power plants, second only to China.
Jack21222 said:While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned.
Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.
mege said:. . . That should be another key to how urgent the development of these resources are, and help to show that someone is going to use them. It might as well be us IMO.
Also, just because a fringe group protests the tar sands doesn't mean 'the Canadian public' is against it. In fact the article (regarding the protests) mentions that a Greenpeace founder is actually OK with tar sands mining because the area is left generally better than they found it. . .
WhoWee said:Running the pipeline across Canada to a new refinery would solve three problems.
1.) no need to run a new pipeline in the US
2.) increased refining capacity
3.) greater energy independence from ME sources
Bonus - we get the oil instead of China.
feathermoon said:Well you're right once.
2.) Not sure how you figure increased refining capacity will result from a pipe.
3.) U.S.A. is already largely energy independent from ME sources, and the pipeline will decrease supply from Canada unless they increase production to compensate.
Bonus - if a pipeline is built, China will get the oil that we're getting now.
Topher925 said:I don't know what a "CO2e" is but the data on that diagram conflicts with most other sources. Most sources on the subject state a 5-45% increase in CO2 emissions in well to wheels scenario when comparing oil sands to conventional means. And the tank to wheels should be about the same as the modern internal combustion engine is going to have roughly the same combustion efficiency no matter which form the oil comes from. Once should really only care about the well to tank or well to wheals.
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1
The International Energy Agency estimates an average of 20% increase of CO2 emissions when compared to conventional petroleum.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=527
Even the IHS CERA (which I consider bias) estimates a 5-15% increase in CO2, much more than the percent the diagram states.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/18/us-oilsands-carbon-idUSTRE54H6C220090518
Some consider it even worse when considering the well to tank model.
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1
So I wouldn't call an increase of ~25%* increase in CO2 emission inflammatory when comparing petroleum to coal.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html
CaptFirePanda said:CO2e is Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Your 45% upper limit is pulled from the Moose Jaw Times article and is far beyond the general consensus of 5-20% (or so). As you can see from the chart, both well to tank and tank to wheels are displayed and I mention the tank to wheels is consistent across the board.
The diagram I provided shows about 2-10%. This is, of course, a factor of the type of oil (eg. Saudi oil is light, US crudes are heavier). So, yes if you take the lightest of light crudes you could likely come up with a number near 20%. If you take the heavier crudes, the differential decreases significantly.
So far, all of these numbers should consider the well to tank model,.. If not, then they are not using the conventional method of comparison. As stated earlier, the final burning of the fuel produces the same emissions regardless of fuel type.
If CERA is considered biased, why isn't a random range of 10 to 45% presented in the Moose Jaw Times approached with some caution?
It may look much closer, but you need to look at the relative differences. Light crude is 30% less than Coal. If we were comparing the proper factors, crude bitumen would still be 15% less than coal. Using the original analogy, light crude is just as bad as coal, if not equivalent!
However, this is the tank to wheel comparison and, as we've discussed, it is exactly the same for crude no matter what the source. It is the well to tank comparison that shows where crude bitumen processing increases emissions from 5-20%.
This is why his remarks (there are others) are inflammatory. They fall closer to fiction than fact.