It's entirely untrue, first alot of environmental movement/NGOs fund partnership projects for clean energy technology.
It's possible but I am ignorant to these "projects" they are funding, let's take this a step further and provide me with some examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Second, these groups are not well funded as you claim. They have endowments that allow them to have operating revenue but they are non-profit outfits. They could blow their wad in one swoop, say $200 million on CCS.
When comparing rail to pipeline spill stats, please normalize your values by dividing the number of spills by total volume transported, or your stats mean nothing.
Using money to advance green technologies? I need to answer that?
This is foolishness. There are LOTS of NGOs that collect funds to do public awareness/education and political lobbying. On all sorts of issues. And this is because the government can do so much more than what the organization can do on its own. Environmental groups are far better off educating and lobbying because the research costs are so high that it requires government involvement.
Same with "Make Poverty History". They are better off with awareness campaigns like this:
Than if they took the paltry amount that they have and gave it to the poor. The problems are so big they REQUIRE government involvement.
You may think Greenpeace's $300 million is lots of money. The U.S. alone pays over 90x that amount ($29,300,000,000) on AIDS research. Governments have FAR more resources at their disposal than NGOs.
There are two basic types of NGOs: "Operational NGOs" and "Advocacy NGOs". There are subcategories but those are the two basic. Some are hybrids. (And Greenpeace, which does have their own science lab at Exeter University could be considered a hybrid). But Advocacy NGOs like Amnesty are for awareness and lobbying, not for direct action. It's like an advocacy NGO that is campaigning for less potholes - perhaps their money should go to filling in the potholes themselves. Or perhaps they think their best bet is to spend the money on drumming up support so that the politicians will spend government resources to take action on the problem.
I listened to Obama's whole speech. He said that Keystone is being reviewed by EPA and other government agencies, which is a normal protocol for any major project. He then proceeded to say that it should only be approved if it benefits USA. Then he said, paraphrasing, that if the pipeline itself contributes to the increase in the GHG emissions by virtue of increased tar sands activity, then it should not be approved and that is the angle which will be used in evaluating its merits.
It is a very tough sell to say that keystone wont increase net GHGs.
First, rail moves bitumen at about half the GHG intensity as pipelines looking at the full cycle emissions.
Second, new pipe is essential to production increases. Look up CERI's latest oil sands cost projections 2012-2046 and see the capacity limitations to new production.
It is a very tough sell to say that keystone wont increase net GHGs.
First, rail moves bitumen at about half the GHG intensity as pipelines looking at the full cycle emissions.
Second, new pipe is essential to production increases. Look up CERI's latest oil sands cost projections 2012-2046 and see the capacity limitations to new production.
Can you elaborate or give a source on the rail vs pipeline statistic?
Then he said, paraphrasing, that if the pipeline itself contributes to the increase in the GHG emissions by virtue of increased tar sands activity, then it should not be approved and that is the angle which will be used in evaluating its merits.
That is interesting.
Of course, the oil sands will be developed regardless of whether Keystone is built - it's just a matter of when. The increased emissions will occur at some point down the road regardless of whether this oil is going to the US or the Chinese or the Euros.
Watching this and seeing the words a second time, I think Obama's statements appear to be much more saying a whole lot of nothing and gave himself the wiggle room to make the decision later more than anything else. As directly quoted:
Quote:
Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest, and our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.
Significantly is subjective and could mean anything. The interpretation tends to be zero tolerance, but the terminology used to define it seems to be very hazy at best I think.
Granted, at this point, I'm sure Obama has reports from every group to on the exacerbation that, whatever his decision, he'll have a study to back it up.
Diesel rail moves 78.5 tonnes CO2 per TJ (check office of energy efficiency)
and 0.23 MJ/tonne km
Meaning that it moves product at 0.018 Kg CO2/TKM
Pipeline requires 250 BTU/ton mile or 0.28 MJ/TKM
Oil pipelines are electric powered, if you take the average US GHG emission factor of 650 grams CO2 per kWh then you get 180.7 tonnes CO2 per TJ.
(this is the basic and contentious assumption, but because Keystone will basically flow through coal and gas dependent states, Montana has more than 65% coal, South Dakota 30% coal, Nebraska 80% coal, Kansas 75% coal, Oklahoma 40% coal, 50% gas, Texas 45% gas, 35% coal -- this means that that 650 g/kwh is probably conservative as coal has a dominant share in every regional electric zone. p.6 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/docum...maryTables.pdf)
Watching this and seeing the words a second time, I think Obama's statements appear to be much more saying a whole lot of nothing and gave himself the wiggle room to make the decision later more than anything else. As directly quoted:
Significantly is subjective and could mean anything. The interpretation tends to be zero tolerance, but the terminology used to define it seems to be very hazy at best I think.
Granted, at this point, I'm sure Obama has reports from every group to on the exacerbation that, whatever his decision, he'll have a study to back it up.
He will try to avoid making a definitive decision at all.
This is how the left deals with the oil industry. They don't have the balls to actually admit that they have no intention of approving new projects lest the electorate accuse them of being anti-economy. Instead they create impossible to meet review hurdles and endless delays to effectively kill new projects. That way they can pretend that they have great policies and procedures in place that evaluate things based on merit, but in reality they are just intentional roadblocks against things they don't like. The dithering and lack of clarity on these kinds of issues will dog investment in America in the long run.
Diesel rail moves 78.5 tonnes CO2 per TJ (check office of energy efficiency)
and 0.23 MJ/tonne km
Meaning that it moves product at 0.018 Kg CO2/TKM
Pipeline requires 250 BTU/ton mile or 0.28 MJ/TKM
Oil pipelines are electric powered, if you take the average US GHG emission factor of 650 grams CO2 per kWh then you get 180.7 tonnes CO2 per TJ.
(this is the basic and contentious assumption, but because Keystone will basically flow through coal and gas dependent states, Montana has more than 65% coal, South Dakota 30% coal, Nebraska 80% coal, Kansas 75% coal, Oklahoma 40% coal, 50% gas, Texas 45% gas, 35% coal -- this means that that 650 g/kwh is probably conservative as coal has a dominant share in every regional electric zone. p.6 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/docum...maryTables.pdf)
That equals 0.033 KG CO2 per TKM.
The % of coal in the electricity grid is assumed to be static in that analysis, which is not how it's going to go down going forward after the EPA/ Obama introduces their new GHG emission policies this summer. On the basis of that analysis, then shouldn't the government be banning electric cars to be sold in those states as well?
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
The % of coal in the electricity grid is assumed to be static in that analysis, which is not how it's going to go down going forward after the EPA/ Obama introduces their new GHG emission policies this summer. On the basis of that analysis, then shouldn't the government be banning electric cars to be sold in those states as well?
Yes the emission factor will drop no doubt over time, it would need to halve though for it to be equal with rail. That would require replacing all coal fire generation in those zones with natural gas before the useful life of the pipeline expires. And even then you're talking about it becoming equal to rail after 30 years, or so, which before that time you will have racked up much much more cummulative emissions as compared to rail.
You make a sound academic point but it doesn't really address my basic and fundamental point that pipelines move bitumen with more GHG intensity.
Actually, come to think of it piped bitumen is actually only 80% bitumen and 20% diluent while trained bitumen would be 100% bitumen. You can add an extra 20% onto pipeline emission factors by that alone and if you want to be very sophisticated you would also count the emissions from producing the natural gas liquids, recycling them and shipping them back to Alberta. I would assume that would add another 5-15% of emissions so factoring that piped would add an extra 35% of GHGs ontop of 0.033 Kg/TKM.
