Obama Administration Delays Pipeline Decision

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s fine for somebody to ride his bike to work if he’s close enough to do it, if the traffic isn’t deadly and if the weather is reasonably decent. But it really has to be recognized that agriculture uses up a great deal of petroleum energy and petroleum products. Do we really want to return to the days when the majority of the populace consisted in subsistence farmers out of sheer necessity? Are people really ready to go out to the countryside and scratch a bare living out of a small patch of soil? Same thing with industry. How does anybody think those bicycles are made? They’re made by smelting and forming metal and processing petroleum products. Takes a lot of energy to do all that.

Back a hunnert years ago, they could buy a car called a Baker Electric … Jay Leno drove one on one of his television programs … he has a bunch of steam powered engines as well. AND a Stanley Steamer.

popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/vintage/4215940

The cool thing about the Baker Electric is that a hundred years ago, it performed about as well as the new Chevy Volt … 40 miles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Motor_Vehicle

Excerpt:

Baker Motor Vehicle Company was a manufacturer of Brass Era electric automobiles in Cleveland, Ohio from 1899 to 1914.

 

[SamH]

I’m not doubting you. I was astonished at what all it took to light up even one town, and if it only does it 30% of the time, I would say the whole effort is questionable.

I’ll admit those big windmills are impressive, though. Absolutely gargantuan. Bigger than I ever expected them to be. I did feel obliged to speculate, however, on what a tornado would do to them.

The massive expenditure to put them up is only recaptured through government subsidies. Years after those huge turbines are long gone the concrete pads poured for their base will still dot the landscape spoiling that grassland for centuries.

I looked at putting up a smaller version on my farm where I am paying .13 per kilowatt hour (and a monthly “service” fee of $60 about double what people just a few miles away are paying). A simple 4KW wind turbine with the federal tax credit would NEVER pay for its self over the estimated life of the turbine. I even looked at buying a unit at a liquidation auction for a bankrupt installer (imagine that) and still couldn’t make it pay.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The massive expenditure to put them up is only recaptured through government subsidies. Years after those huge turbines are long gone the concrete pads poured for their base will still dot the landscape spoiling that grassland for centuries.

I looked at putting up a smaller version on my farm where I am paying .13 per kilowatt hour (and a monthly “service” fee of $60 about double what people just a few miles away are paying). A simple 4KW wind turbine with the federal tax credit would NEVER pay for its self over the estimated life of the turbine. I even looked at buying a unit at a liquidation auction for a bankrupt installer (imagine that) and still couldn’t make it pay.

Not surprised. I remember back in the late 1970s when solar and wind were all the rage due to the “oil shortage”. Panels went up on roofs. People had these black “heat storage” tanks in their houses. Fireplace chimneys were routed into big rock piles to store heat.

All of that stuff was junked in fairly short order after the big hullabaloo was over. The stuff just didn’t work better than the alternatives, and was expensive.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Back a hunnert years ago, they could buy a car called a Baker Electric … Jay Leno drove one on one of his television programs … he has a bunch of steam powered engines as well. AND a Stanley Steamer.

popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/vintage/4215940

The cool thing about the Baker Electric is that a hundred years ago, it performed about as well as the new Chevy Volt … 40 miles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Motor_Vehicle

Excerpt:

Baker Motor Vehicle Company was a manufacturer of Brass Era electric automobiles in Cleveland, Ohio from 1899 to 1914.

Yup, and the old U.S. cavalry had the saying “Forty miles a day on beans and hay”, and the horse could probably outrun the Baker Electric. And, of course, it could eat grass where the Baker Electric couldn’t.

 

[lynnvinc]

Back a hunnert years ago, they could buy a car called a Baker Electric …The cool thing about the Baker Electric is that a hundred years ago, it performed about as well as the new Chevy Volt … 40 miles.

And it is regrettable that electric cars went out of fashion. Ladies preferred them back then, bec they didn’t need cranking and didn’t spit out all that dirty pollution, but ICE cars were a necessity for the farms that didn’t have electricity. Once the automatic ignition was invented, electric cars died out.

Now some good news. When I spoke to the Volt expert at the dealership, and asked him about the 100,000 miles (or 8 years) warranty on the batteries (telling him I figured maybe 80,000 miles) and what should we do when they need replacement, he said they should not ever (up to 300,000 miles = 60 years the amount we drive) need replacing – they were built to last the lifetime of the car.

All I can say is we are in 7th heaven over this car. It is wonderful. It has a little turning green ball on its screen that goes up or down if we are not driving efficiently…so I’ve started hypermiling. Just up to last week I used to be a jack-rabbit starter, slam on the brakes, weave in&out of traffic “Mr. Wheeler” maniac, so now even my impatient reckless personality is changing I even started cleaning up the garage so we could park it inside – I going thru a total transformation.

I’ve named our Volt “Jag” since my hubbie lamented that for that price he could have pretty near bought a Jaguar instead – I told him it’s just like a Jag, only better. As it coasts or we brake, the regenerative break/wheels pump energy back into the battery (it has a visual of that). It is extremely smooth and quiet. And for the sportsy types, it has a souped up “sport” mode with more power (but also using more charge from the battery).

I feel so good we are not contributing to miscarriages, birth defects, and other health harms from ICE pollution; to acid rain from NOx from ICE pollution; or to global warming. That is really what I was after – reducing my harm (tho I do hope and pray they find solutions for those bird kills).

It is really great and I’m happy, happy, happy, and singing – Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you…

I would hope that others would also join in these types of environmental efforts at whatever level feasible for them. It’s really a great feeling that God has provided so many many solutions for us, if we would only pray and seek His help and guidance.

Praise the Lord, and thanks be to God!

 

[SamH]

Now some good news. When I spoke to the Volt expert at the dealership, and asked him about the 100,000 miles (or 8 years) warranty on the batteries (telling him I figured maybe 80,000 miles) and what should we do when they need replacement, he said they should not ever (up to 300,000 miles = 60 years the amount we drive) need replacing – they were built to last the lifetime of the car.

So did this expert tell you why they catch fire?

 

[lynnvinc]

So did this expert tell you why they catch fire?

No, the other Volt dealer told me, but I had already read about it. The Volt has since been exonerated re it (I posted earlier about it).

However, beware ICE cars

 

[SamH]

No, the other Volt dealer told me, but I had already read about it. The Volt has since been exonerated re it (I posted earlier about it).

Like the Pinto?

 

[lynnvinc]

Like the Pinto?

Well, if you have a Pinto and are worried about the ICE catching fire, I suppose you could do an EV conversion on it.

I’ve seen an old 1977 Toyota Corolla ICE to EV conversion back in 1992, an they let me drive it around a bit. It was great.

What you do is get an old ICE car. If the engine is still good, you take it out and sell it. I understand it is not that difficult…I just was never able to make it to the EV meetings. But when I asked if a lady could do it, they said there was a guy there who had never held a screw driver in his hand, and he was able to do so. Check for clubs near you at electricauto.org/?page=Chapters

 

[lynnvinc]

For all you bird lovers who are extremely worried about birds dying from wind generators, I have a bit of good news (wind generators are not so bad) and bad news (there are lots of other extremely serious threats to them) – see science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm .

I think when you add in global warming (which is expected to make around 50% of bird species go extinct within a hundred years or so), the situation for birds is really quite dire. Then there is also the destroyed forests and lakes from acid rain, taking away habitat and food from birds and other creatures.

Here are the stats from that page:

Man-made structure/technology Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

• Feral and domestic cats: Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
• Power lines: 130 million – 174 million [source: AWEA]
• Windows (residential and commercial): 100 million – 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
• Pesticides: 70 million [source: AWEA]
• Automobiles: 60 million – 80 million [source: AWEA]
• Lighted communication towers: 40 million – 50 million [source: AWEA]
• Wind turbines: 10,000 – 40,000 [source: ABC]

I remember how our cat caught and ate a pheasant (I think out of season) – we didn’t see the dastardly deed, only the remaining tail feathers. We still have those lovely tail feathers.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Who pays for the resistance against Canadian oil exports to the USA through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Texas? And also to the Pacific Rim through the Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to the excellent harbor in Kitimat, BC? There has been some local information about how the US Tides fund has funnelled millions of $$$ contrary to Canadian law about charitable donations, especially written by Vivian Krausse in Vancouver. But now the Sun TV News has uncovered a 48 page PowerPoint presentation from the Rockefeller Foundation about how they can help to funnel millions of $$$ to groups that will oppose, delay or otherwise make pipeline building exremely expensive, or rejected. At play is close to 2 million barrels per day of oil that could contibute to the worlds oil needs. It would supply the US with about 10% of its daily needs, and over 2% of the worlds daily oil consumption.

I am not sure if the link to the TV newscast this is on works outside of Canada, but here it is: sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1426148700001

 

[lynnvinc]

Who pays for the resistance against Canadian oil exports to the USA through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Texas?

We’re all doing it for free out of the goodness and decency of our heart, and many of us would lay down our lives for the sake of the life of the world.

As for those who only seek death to the world. Shame, shame, shame.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Not surprised. I remember back in the late 1970s when solar and wind were all the rage due to the “oil shortage”. Panels went up on roofs. People had these black “heat storage” tanks in their houses. Fireplace chimneys were routed into big rock piles to store heat.

All of that stuff was junked in fairly short order after the big hullabaloo was over. The stuff just didn’t work better than the alternatives, and was expensive.

Hope springs eternal … doing the same thing over and over, in the forlorn hope of different results … I keep buying those overpriced solar-powered “glo-sticks” … and they have a huge failure rate.

Add them up … a LOT of money … very poor results.

Finally got a set of electric lights on a timer … and they work … consistently.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Canadians don’t seem to mind producing oil from tar sands and oil sands.

But, we’re going to not use their oil from their oil sands. Even though it is abundant and economical.

I guess that is the argument against our using their oil.

We are better off enhancing the power of hostile nations than helping the economic growth of Canada.

That is the argument of those opposed to our using Canadian oil.

Here is a collection of information that seems to contradict the objections.

Canadians have been trying to develop these tar sands since the late 1800’s and the oil has been in use since at least 1926.

The ONLY thing flowing in the new XL Pipeline will be Desulfured Crude Oil.

The refineries in Houston, TX have no use for Slurries of Bitumen. Thick tarry bitumen is NOT going via the pipeline.

The Fort MacMurray area is surrounded with refineries that de-sulfur the oil and send stabilized crude oil down to the US Gulf Coast refineries.

This Pipeline is paralleling 5 EXISTING pipelines, all without any impact on aquifers in Nebraska!

Some apparently claim we will export to Latin America, which is so laughable a concept: Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela are the main players in South America!

**in Wikipedia:
In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on September 23, 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development and the pipeline, arguing that:

The total area that has been affected by surface mining represents only 0.1% of Canada’s boreal forest.

The oil sands account for about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.

Electricity plants powered by coal in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada’s oil sands (the coal-fired electricity plants in the State of Wisconsin alone produce the equivalent of the entire GHG emissions of the oil sands.

California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands.

Oliver criticized opponents of the pipeline, stating that all of the above facts are ignored by “celebrity protestors.”[43]
**
And of course, we are learning every day that the GHG arguments were cooked up and are fake/bogus.

The tar sands are an absolutely humongous reserve of fossil fuel which is right now almost untapped.

There is probably more oil in tar sands than even the Saudis could extract. However it is very expensive and very messy to get at. If the price of oil goes high enough (without carbon taxes) then there will be a huge incentive to get at those tar sands and turn Canada into another Saudi Arabia. The alternative for Canadian oil companies is that Enbridge will build the Northern Gateway pipeline to a new BC terminal suitable for supertankers. That will provide a direct link for Canadian oil to Asian markets. This will also keep all of the $5 billion pipeline spend in Canada and only require Canadian regulatory approval. There would be little political opposition considering the conservative majority government in Ottawa. Delivering 525,000 barrels of crude per day to a growing Asian market should help oil producers in Canada boost the pricing of their product versus selling it at a discount to the U.S.

Bringing the Canadian oil into the United States via this pipeline would be one of the best economic security things we could do.

 

[lynnvinc]

The Canadians don’t seem to mind producing oil from tar sands and oil sands.
…

And Hitler didn’t mind committing genocide…in fact he ordered it.

Bec Canadians have no objections to developing tar sands does not make it morally right.

Burn all the conventional and unconventional (incl tar sands) fossil fuels, we could pretty much guarantee annihilation of life on earth. Why take that risk. Why not turn out lights not in use and the plethora of other measures that reduce GHG emissions cost-effectively. Why not sacrifice a bit (so far I haven’t had to do much of that, I’m still cutting out the profligate fat).

Dr. James Hansen, top climate scientist at NASA, has written (see pg. 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf ):
There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time.

What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor.
There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record.

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

Now many people will run to their Rush Limbaugh scientists and stick their heads in the tar sands and be reassured there is no such thing as global warming. But I prefer to trust real climate scientists, and since I know Hansen personally, I know he is a very good person, very trustworthy and honest. He himself is very concerned about the fate of his grandchildren, whom he loves very much. They are Catholic (his wife is Catholic).

 

[vz71]

And Hitler didn’t mind committing genocide…in fact he ordered it.

Bec Canadians have no objections to developing tar sands does not make it morally right.

Apples and oranges argument.

Developing a natural resource is not comperable to genocide.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Apples and oranges argument.

Developing a natural resource is not comperable to genocide.

I might add that if we develop natural resources in a way that doesn’t hurt the environment and treats workers ok is perfectly ok.

 

[Roselle]

The Keystone pipeline’s construction might still have life - at least come to life soon. Hope it works out as I was reading earlier that Canada’s Prime Minister was on his way to China for talks.

“Republicans prepare for next round in Keystone pipeline fight”

foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/04/republicans-prepare-for-next-round-in-keystone-pipeline-fight/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And Hitler didn’t mind committing genocide…in fact he ordered it.

Bec Canadians have no objections to developing tar sands does not make it morally right.

Burn all the conventional and unconventional (incl tar sands) fossil fuels, we could pretty much guarantee annihilation of life on earth. Why take that risk. Why not turn out lights not in use and the plethora of other measures that reduce GHG emissions cost-effectively. Why not sacrifice a bit (so far I haven’t had to do much of that, I’m still cutting out the profligate fat).

Dr. James Hansen, top climate scientist at NASA, has written (see pg. 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf ):
There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time.

What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor.
There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record.

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

Now many people will run to their Rush Limbaugh scientists and stick their heads in the tar sands and be reassured there is no such thing as global warming. But I prefer to trust real climate scientists, and since I know Hansen personally, I know he is a very good person, very trustworthy and honest. He himself is very concerned about the fate of his grandchildren, whom he loves very much. They are Catholic (his wife is Catholic).

Extreme statements … emotional statements … are of interest … an indicator of the level or degree of “science” involved. Or, the lack of science.

For example, humanity has been burning coal for how long? Hundreds of years … not even a breath of an indication of runaway greenhouse effect.

When coal and other smoke and smog became a problem in London and in Pittsburgh and other places, the local people and their politicians took action to curtail the pollutants. And that took place long ago.

The Canadians have been burning tar sands and tar shale and oil shale since … probably 1925 … also, again, not even a breath of an indication of runaway greenhouse effect.

 

[lynnvinc]

For example, humanity has been burning coal for how long? Hundreds of years … not even a breath of an indication of runaway greenhouse effect.

When coal and other smoke and smog became a problem in London and in Pittsburgh and other places, the local people and their politicians took action to curtail the pollutants. And that took place long ago.

The Canadians have been burning tar sands and tar shale and oil shale since … probably 1925 … also, again, not even a breath of an indication of runaway greenhouse effect.

It’s the combination of all of us together over many generations emitting GHGs that is causing the problem. But we can’t really hold people morally responsible in earlier decades and centuries, since they had no idea what the combined impact would be. I’m thinking that those continuing to emit GHGs after, say, 1990, without any concern about the harm they are causing would be held morally accountable. That’s when JPII first issued his statement that we are all morally responsible for global warming and need to reduce our harms.

So I really don’t criticize those before 1990. They knew not what they were doing. We now over the past 21 years, however, we know well the harms we are causing.

I not only fear for the life of the world, but also the souls being harmed by such recalcitrance re accepting one’s own part in the AGW harm & refusing to do what one can to reduce that harm. At the end of my life I’m in tears over this horrid state of affairs; I could have never imagined such extensive and pervasive iniquity. Is there anyone out there who cares about human life, about the people (and others of God’s creatures) they are harming? Doesn’t anyone feel sorry about that, and desire to reduce their harm and do good?

I’m not making up AGW – it’s a very well established fact in the scientific community, and gathering more and more evidence as the years pass. Please follow realclimate.org with an open mind, if you don’t believe me, a lowly nothing, not worthy at all of being believed by anyone. Please consider what the scientists are saying…on the very off-chance that they just may be right.