fear_and_greed Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/18012007/3/canada-u-s-urges-fivefold-expansion-alberta-oilsands-production.html So let me get this straight, Canada should sell off our energy self sufficiency for a few trillion baubles, accelerate environmental damage and in the future we'll then be left out in the cold(literally) so hordes of soccer moms can drive their SUVs to Starbucks? And there's talk of putting in a nuclear reactor to power the expansion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I haven't had luck finding a free report on the demographics of SUV owners. Can anyone point me to one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Phil Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 No, we need to drive our SUVs to Banff to go ice climbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/18012007/3/canada-u-s-urges-fivefold-expansion-alberta-oilsands-production.html So let me get this straight, Canada should sell off our energy self sufficiency for a few trillion baubles, accelerate environmental damage and in the future we'll then be left out in the cold(literally) so hordes of soccer moms can drive their SUVs to Starbucks? And there's talk of putting in a nuclear reactor to power the expansion. So just say no. It's not like we've got a gun to your head...yet. Edited January 18, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 ...so hordes of soccer moms can drive their SUVs... ...a free report on the demographics of SUV owners. Can anyone point me to one? The dealership required my wife to show a birth certificate of one of her kids and forcefully head-butt me in the face before allowing her to purchase an SUV. I assumed this was universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 The shale oil is just a stepping stone. What we really want is your hydrogen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 How can the US tell Canada what to do on oil sands? Let economic forces dictate what happens. If the price of crude is high enough, Canadian oil companies will exploit the resource. What are we going to do, subsidize oil sands production? Bad idea. I happen to think that nuclear energy would be an excellent choice to power oil sands extraction. It would be preferable to using the oil itself as they do now. A plant could be built locally to supply electricity or even steam for oil production and vastly reduce greenhouse gas generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hey - CBS and I agree on something. The price of crude will determine when and to what extent the oil sands are exploited. Using nuclear power to extract the oil from the oil sands will result in a drastic reduction in the amount of CO2 released per gallon of fuel generated by this process. The opposition to nuclear power amongst folks who are ostensibly concerned about global warming is a wonder to behold. If the most significant and immediate threat facing the environment is global warming, then there can be no serious opposition to expanding nuclear power on environmental grounds. Most of the more vocal folks in the environmental movement seem to be less concerned with addressing the complex trade-offs involved with mitigating environmental problems than engaging in a sustained rhetorical assault on the modern market economy. Too little analysis, too much fantasizing about magically taking mankind back to an organic-tribal-pre-modern-paleo-eden that never existed in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 note to canadians: just ignore our government - that's what we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Alberta doesn't have enough water to even double production using current technology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 If you say no, we'll invade. No one can stop us now that Henry Rollins joined up: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Canada should definitely say no. A significant exploitation of its tar sands would be an environmental disaster: 1) The energy required to turn tar sand into oil is nearly equal to the energy of your end product. There is little net gain. 2) The tar sand > oil process releases from 5 to 10 times the amount of greenhouse gases as standard crude oil production/refinement. 3) The process itself requires strip mining hundreds of thousands of acres. Enough said. 4) We should 'exploit' conservation (which save money) and green technologies before this kind of desperate measure is even discussed. Price should never be the only deciding factor in a process that has as much devastating environmental impact as this would. Shame on those who argue for this (and always with the caveat that the destruction takes place in someone else's back yard.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 sure, let's trade one problem (greenhouse effect) for another (nuclear waste, which is already a big disposal problem). i say we go for canada's hydrogen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Shame on those who argue for this (and always with the caveat that the destruction takes place in someone else's back yard.) Isn't Canada our back yard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 It's our back door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 your top, more like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 With Mexico providing a little knee work sporting a Belizian butt plug. One big happy continent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 no means yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fear_and_greed Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 If we could melt those pesky polar ice caps and glaciers then we may have enough water to pull this project off. Then either build a canal from the Arctic ocean to northern Alberta or a superhighway for tanker trucks to transport the water in. Suck that place dry, then bury garbage from all over N. America in the hole. Light off a couple underground nukes to jump start the oil making process and in a few thousand years after that start pumping out black gold again. We could call this sustainable energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Phil Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Canada => Eastern Alaska, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 We've got some really great nukes we could sell you, but you can probably get them cheaper from the North Koreans. Are there tar sands beneath Jasper NP? I was thinking we could shave off the top and relocate it down here somewhere...Robson included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 sure, let's trade one problem (greenhouse effect) for another (nuclear waste, which is already a big disposal problem). i say we go for canada's hydrogen. I'd be perfectly happy to make that trade, and I expect that I'll have plenty of company before long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 sure, let's trade one problem (greenhouse effect) for another (nuclear waste, which is already a big disposal problem). i say we go for canada's hydrogen. cuz fusion works Nuclear power is much better source of electricity than burning anything except republicans and suv drivers. I'd much rather produce waste that I know where the hell it is, then spraying it everywhere, where we have no longer have any control of it whatsoever. Think of co2/nuclear waste as poop. Which would you rather clean up? A nice solid chunk, or explosive liquid diarrhea? hydro, wind and solar are red herrings as well. Were not going to be able to get a whole lot more hydro in the US, and imho wind doesn't have the energy density and on demand availability to make it more than helpful addition to an existing power grid based on hydro/nuke/burning shit, same with solar, except last I heard the process of creating solar cells was relatively energy intensive seriously degrading their net gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) The answer is we'll need all of the above. I don't think wind and solar are red herrings at all, although they're not a silver bullet, either. Ex: Half your home energy usage is for hot water. Everyone focuses on photovoltaics, which are the least cost effective and most expensive home technology, but what homes really need is passive solar, which requires no more energy to produce that a standard plumbing system. A friend as a system here in seattle, and it produces all of his hot water for 6 months a year, and half for the rest of the year. He supplements it with an on demand water heater, which is in itself more efficient than a tank unit. The payback for these systems is about 5 years in Seattle. So...how many passive solar water heating systems do you see around your neighborhood? How about in new construction? That's the problem. We haven't even begun to conserve. And that's just one example out of many where, with proper planning and new construction techniques, we could cut our energy usage per capita in half at least...and still live as well as we do now. As for wind, the new windfarm at Vantage will power 70,000 homes at average output. Not bad for just getting started. A new company is now producing biodeisel from fast growing algae. Soon, a cellulose based biodeisel will be available, which will make favorable the energy in vs energy out equation for that fuel. My point is: let's max out these clean technologies before we 'gladly make the tradeoff' (ie: selfishly fuck future generations in the ass with a hotter planet). Edited January 18, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 If you say no, we'll invade. No one can stop us now that Henry Rollins joined up: If Hank signed, I would sign. I would shave my head and live with him under any circumstance. I love him. I am secretly dating him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.