CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Do you support the Keystone XL?
Poll ended at Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:39 am
Yes  54%  [ 15 ]
No  32%  [ 9 ]
Undecided  4%  [ 1 ]
I don't care, one way or the other  11%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 28

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 658
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:05 am
 


bootlegga wrote:


Why should anyone sit on a resource worth hundreds of billions of dollars when there is no replacement in sight for it?


The oilsands in Alberta are worth an estimated 80-100 trillion..... and could be up to 4-6 trillion barrels of oil.... Just saying :-)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:53 am
 


If digging them up is going to end up costing us more than 100 trillion in healthcare and environmental costs, not to mention opportunity costs, then leaving it there is a no-brainer, isn't it? Just saying.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2566
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:11 am
 


Lemmy, we can't change the past.

Contracts have already been signed for a lot further into the future than most people realise. The oil, at this point, is coming out if we like it or not.

We might as well maximize the profits we gain to research things like altnernative energy, medical technologies, etc.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4247
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:50 am
 


peck420 wrote:
Lemmy, we can't change the past.

Contracts have already been signed for a lot further into the future than most people realise. The oil, at this point, is coming out if we like it or not.

We might as well maximize the profits we gain to research things like altnernative energy, medical technologies, etc.


Peck is right on that, we're way past the point of deciding whether or not the sands should be developed. In fact, we're way past the point of discussing whether or not the Keystone should be built; it's scheduled to kick off next summer. All the hub-bub you hear about America not approving it is nothing more than posturing. The pipe for the line is all ready being stockpiled and bids are going out. She's pretty much a done deal.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20896
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:10 am
 


1Peg wrote:
bootlegga wrote:


Why should anyone sit on a resource worth hundreds of billions of dollars when there is no replacement in sight for it?


The oilsands in Alberta are worth an estimated 80-100 trillion..... and could be up to 4-6 trillion barrels of oil.... Just saying :-)


The estimates I've seen say there might be 2-3 trillion barrels of oil - but with current technology, only about 180 billion are recoverable. That's where my estimate came from.

However, as time goes on and the technology develops, more may become recoverable.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20896
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:20 am
 


Lemmy wrote:
If digging them up is going to end up costing us more than 100 trillion in healthcare and environmental costs, not to mention opportunity costs, then leaving it there is a no-brainer, isn't it? Just saying.


In one sense you are correct, the potential costs may exceed their actual value.

However, in another, you are wrong. To run our society, we NEED oil. It's that simple. Without oil, the world would literally shut down - trade, factories, farms, transportation, all sorts of things modern society runs on would vanish, which would be a calamity of untold proportions.

Given that many other conventional oil sources are running low (from the North Sea to the Western Canadian Basin to the Texas and California), while others like those in the Middle East are anyone's best guess, worldwide demand has begun to exceed production, which is why prices have risen steadily over the past decade and a half (I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you).

But the fact is the world needs more oil and sufficient-sized conventional oil deposits are not being found, so unconventional oil is now necessary to keep our economy running.

I may not like that we need to use the oil sands, but I do understand the necessity of it. The time to develop alternative energy sources was a generation ago when Hubbert first discovered the peak oil curve. However, we all decided to stick our heads in the sand and drive big SUVs, build houses twice the size of those built a generation ago, buy cheap goods from foreign countries, etc.

Sadly, now we need oil from the oil sands to keep our society running while we develop an alternative energy source to replace oil.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 32
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:12 am
 


bootlegga wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If digging them up is going to end up costing us more than 100 trillion in healthcare and environmental costs, not to mention opportunity costs, then leaving it there is a no-brainer, isn't it? Just saying.


In one sense you are correct, the potential costs may exceed their actual value.

However, in another, you are wrong. To run our society, we NEED oil. It's that simple. Without oil, the world would literally shut down - trade, factories, farms, transportation, all sorts of things modern society runs on would vanish, which would be a calamity of untold proportions.

Given that many other conventional oil sources are running low (from the North Sea to the Western Canadian Basin to the Texas and California), while others like those in the Middle East are anyone's best guess, worldwide demand has begun to exceed production, which is why prices have risen steadily over the past decade and a half (I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you).

I may not like that we need to use the oil sands, but I do understand the necessity of it. The time to develop alternative energy sources was a generation ago when Hubbert first discovered the peak oil curve. However, we all decided to stick our heads in the sand and drive big SUVs, build houses twice the size of those built a generation ago, buy cheap goods from foreign countries, etc.

Sadly, now we need oil from the oil sands to keep our society running while we develop an alternative energy source to replace oil.


What you said, is all true, but Conservatives keep cock-blocking alternative energy sources. We had an electric vehicle, before the gas powered one ever came out. The gas powered vehicle took off, because it could go further than the electric one. It could be used on the new highways being built.

Vehicles should be a mixture of electric/solar power. Now depending on how much a person's vehicle is powered by the Sun, will determine how much hydro/coal/etc, is used to power up the vehicle.

Which then leads to geothermal/tidal/solar/wind power. Now these energy sources, just cannot be used anywhere on the planet, (have no Ocean with a strong current, = no tidal power) and while it is true, it is more expensive to do so, it will create jobs.

Alternative Energy:
1) Creates jobs.

2) Is better for the environment, therefore we will benefit from it. (air pollution)

3) It has to be done eventually, and the longer it takes, the harder it will be to over-come the environmental damage we are doing to our planet.

If the ignorant keep holding this off, we will only end up killing ourselves. And if we do, then human beings have proven not to be worthy to survive as a species.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 96
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:55 am
 


Scott Yee wrote:
If the ignorant keep holding this off, we will only end up killing ourselves. And if we do, then human beings have proven not to be worthy to survive as a species.



lol. if we kill ourselves, we prove we don't deserve to survive. melodrama and redundancy in one sentence. that's good stuff.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20896
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:57 am
 


Scott Yee wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If digging them up is going to end up costing us more than 100 trillion in healthcare and environmental costs, not to mention opportunity costs, then leaving it there is a no-brainer, isn't it? Just saying.


In one sense you are correct, the potential costs may exceed their actual value.

However, in another, you are wrong. To run our society, we NEED oil. It's that simple. Without oil, the world would literally shut down - trade, factories, farms, transportation, all sorts of things modern society runs on would vanish, which would be a calamity of untold proportions.

Given that many other conventional oil sources are running low (from the North Sea to the Western Canadian Basin to the Texas and California), while others like those in the Middle East are anyone's best guess, worldwide demand has begun to exceed production, which is why prices have risen steadily over the past decade and a half (I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you).

I may not like that we need to use the oil sands, but I do understand the necessity of it. The time to develop alternative energy sources was a generation ago when Hubbert first discovered the peak oil curve. However, we all decided to stick our heads in the sand and drive big SUVs, build houses twice the size of those built a generation ago, buy cheap goods from foreign countries, etc.

Sadly, now we need oil from the oil sands to keep our society running while we develop an alternative energy source to replace oil.


What you said, is all true, but Conservatives keep cock-blocking alternative energy sources. We had an electric vehicle, before the gas powered one ever came out. The gas powered vehicle took off, because it could go further than the electric one. It could be used on the new highways being built.

Vehicles should be a mixture of electric/solar power. Now depending on how much a person's vehicle is powered by the Sun, will determine how much hydro/coal/etc, is used to power up the vehicle.

Which then leads to geothermal/tidal/solar/wind power. Now these energy sources, just cannot be used anywhere on the planet, (have no Ocean with a strong current, = no tidal power) and while it is true, it is more expensive to do so, it will create jobs.

Alternative Energy:
1) Creates jobs.

2) Is better for the environment, therefore we will benefit from it. (air pollution)

3) It has to be done eventually, and the longer it takes, the harder it will be to over-come the environmental damage we are doing to our planet.

If the ignorant keep holding this off, we will only end up killing ourselves. And if we do, then human beings have proven not to be worthy to survive as a species.


The Conservatives killed off the electric car?

Sorry, but electric and even steam-powered (you heard me) cars were common in the early 20th century - what killed off the alternatives was that gas provides more power/speed and endurance than either of the other two options, so IC engines became the norm.

That is still the case - electric cars can come close to the fuel/power ratio that IC engines create, but still lack in range. An electric car might be useful in Asia or Europe where major cities are small and close together, but North America has much lower population densities than most of the world and the distances between major cities make current electric cars impractical for many people. I'm sure that someday an electric will be made that is useful here in North America, but right now, they are just not practical for use here.

I fully believe in using renewable energy sources, but the problem is that renewables are not capable enough to power transportation, which is one of the largest users of oil. Alberta for example, has several hundred wind mills (located in southern Alberta), but there is currently no practical way to transfer the power they generate to automobiles. Same goes for solar. The UofA is currently working on making paper-thin solar panels more capable so that someday they can provide more than a trickle of power like they do today. But they expect it will be years before the technology is commercially available.

I think Paul Boone (or some American tycoon) has suggested using wind/solar to power plants to crack hydrogen from water, which can then be used for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

I don't know that alternative energy will create any new jobs, as it may simply replace those working in coal-fired power plants with those working in solar powered plants, but I agree that Canada should be investing heavily in renewable energy so that we are not left behind by other nations that are already investing in it (like China and India).

I hope that we will transition sooner rather than later, but that transition is ultimately a couple of decades away (at least), and it will be incredibly costly and difficult to do.

BTW, national highways were not built until after WW2, and for most of that period, the Liberals were in office...


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:48 pm
 


Here are a couple of fairly recent developments in solar cell technology. There are more and the cells are close to neing competitive with traditional fuels now. That is ignoring the hidden costs of the traditional sources.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2272

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/disco ... keberries/


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4247
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:08 pm
 


eureka wrote:
Here are a couple of fairly recent developments in solar cell technology. There are more and the cells are close to neing competitive with traditional fuels now. That is ignoring the hidden costs of the traditional sources.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2272

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/disco ... keberries/


I appreciate that science is getting closer to finding alternative fuel sources but there's a pretty big difference between the research currently being conducted and a market ready product. In my opinion we're still decades away from a practical and affordable alternative to the combustion engine.

Also, it's not just about finding a replacement for gasoline and diesel, what about plastics and other bi-products?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:32 pm
 


The replacements are readily available. There is nothing made from oils that cannot be made from biomass. There is plenty of that, some of it much cheaper than oil.

Aouple of links to sites that say we can produce sufficient renewable energy.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com ... ion-srren/

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/10 ... -2050.html


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 32
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:51 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:

The Conservatives killed off the electric car?

Sorry, but electric and even steam-powered (you heard me) cars were common in the early 20th century - what killed off the alternatives was that gas provides more power/speed and endurance than either of the other two options, so IC engines became the norm.

BTW, national highways were not built until after WW2, and for most of that period, the Liberals were in office...



I should have separated "Conservatives keep cock-blocking alternative energy" & "We had an electric vehicle"

And I stated what you said about gas powered vehicles being better. And manybe my memory is off, but I could swear, they started to build either a highway system, or some kind of new roads, where the electric vehicle could not compete.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 32
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:57 pm
 


dino_bobba_renno wrote:
Also, it's not just about finding a replacement for gasoline and diesel, what about plastics and other bi-products?

All products will have to either be recyclable,
reusable, or biodegradable, with some possible
exceptions. For a product to be considered biodegradable,
it must break down within weeks or a few months, and
must be environmentally friendly; it must not become
hazardous to humans, animals or plant life afterwards.

Now I do believe it is possible to make plastic, without using crude oil, but either way, oil production will not stop over-night.

Passing a planetary law, making all new vehicles solar/electric power, will be good for the environment. And as this would be mass produced, the costs will go down. But to me, cost doesn't matter, doing the right thing does.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4247
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:17 pm
 


Scott Yee wrote:
dino_bobba_renno wrote:
Also, it's not just about finding a replacement for gasoline and diesel, what about plastics and other bi-products?

All products will have to either be recyclable,
reusable, or biodegradable, with some possible
exceptions. For a product to be considered biodegradable,
it must break down within weeks or a few months, and
must be environmentally friendly; it must not become
hazardous to humans, animals or plant life afterwards.

Now I do believe it is possible to make plastic, without using crude oil, but either way, oil production will not stop over-night.

Passing a planetary law, making all new vehicles solar/electric power, will be good for the environment. And as this would be mass produced, the costs will go down. But to me, cost doesn't matter, doing the right thing does.


Scott, the only thing the UN is capable of passing is "passing the buck". Do you honestly think countries like China and India would go for a more expensive alternative considering they wouldn't even step up and take a more active role in Kyoto?

These are all great warm and fuzzy ideas but they're not overly realistic and I personally think that is part of the problem with many people on the environmental side. They set unrealistic goals. There may be a day when we achieve some of the goals you've mentioned but it will happen ever so slowly and in very small steps.

I looked into how Trans Canada was making out today and they've already started construction on the water crossings and wouldn't ya know it Michels got the contract. I wonder if Trans Canada plans on using any Canadian contractors? OJ and Waschuk should automatically be given a couple of spreads on the Canadian side. Could you imagine the reaction in the US if a big Canadian contractor went down south to build part of this pipeline.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.