On what page of this thread was the outrage that the BC LNG Alliance project in Kitimat going through, but the Northern Gateway LNG project was stomped into the ground due to environmental concerns?
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Remember when I said we should export our technology as well as our resources to help other countries?
I bet you Greta and her fellow morons aren't talking about this amazing technology, and how revolutionary the energy sector in Canada has been to lowering emissions and creating a cleaner environment.
This had me wonder why the shipping industry doesn't use LNG as a fuel, considering how dirty bunker fuel is. That led me to Wikipedia, turns out they are starting to.
On what page of this thread was the outrage that the BC LNG Alliance project in Kitimat going through, but the Northern Gateway LNG project was stomped into the ground due to environmental concerns?
Was there a Northern Gateway LNG? I thought that was an oil pipeline only, unless I missed something. Natural gas pipelines will always be an easier sell than oil.
This had me wonder why the shipping industry doesn't use LNG as a fuel, considering how dirty bunker fuel is. That led me to Wikipedia, turns out they are starting to.
I actually started looking at LNG applications and there is no end.
Shipping, trucking, mass transportation, military applications....there are a lot of ways it can be applied.
We have only touched the tip of what we can accomplish by using LNG. Most applications are only starting to come online and a lot of research is still left to be done.
From what I read the shipping & cruise ship industry creates a lot of emissions and could benefit hugely from being able to use LNG as a fuel source.
I actually started looking at LNG applications and there is no end.
Shipping, trucking, mass transportation, military applications....there are a lot of ways it can be applied.
We have only touched the tip of what we can accomplish by using LNG. Most applications are only starting to come online and a lot of research is still left to be done.
From what I read the shipping & cruise ship industry creates a lot of emissions and could benefit hugely from being able to use LNG as a fuel source.
I don't know in terms of military applications. I mean I've seen some work on aircraft using it, but I don't know if I'd want to be driving in a tank or truck powered by Natural Gas in a environments with shooting.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I don't know in terms of military applications. I mean I've seen some work on aircraft using it, but I don't know if I'd want to be driving in a tank or truck powered by Natural Gas in a environments with shooting.
How is it different from driving in an environment with a diesel tank?
I don't know in terms of military applications. I mean I've seen some work on aircraft using it, but I don't know if I'd want to be driving in a tank or truck powered by Natural Gas in a environments with shooting.
OK, fine, but switch that around, and send the enemy LNG bombs. Pow!
Lots of "shoulds" and "you don't needs" in this thread.
How about you just let people live their lives without being so judgmental. I'm sure there's dozens of dumb #### you guys choose that other people would find stupid.
You’d best stay out of the thread about drowning in debt.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Because you are making assumptions about what people need when you don't know their circumstances
I can't make an assumption on what a person needs, but I sure can make assumptions on what people need. That's the basis for virtually all political conversations
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Because you are making assumptions about what people need when you don't know their circumstances
I'm double quoting this post because it hits what I think is the Central issue with the climate change problem.
Scientists are convinced we are already on a catastrophic course. The trouble is, the ramifications for what we've already done won't hit for a few decades and not changing course will make it vastly worse. Think hundreds of millions of refugees, worsening wars and famines, and unpredictable weather events. These things are already likely to happen, only we don't know how much worse than that.
Now, with that framework, tell people if they want they can just drive less, consume less, burn less, etc. It's just not workable. We can discuss freedom to drive a 1 ton dually to haul the holiday trailer and fill it for cheap subsidized fuel, and we can discuss banning them. One is environmentally unwise, the other is politically and practically impossible. The answer still lies in the middle through legislation though, and that's why we need to discuss what people "need" and "should". The important changes will not come because people will just choose to do the right thing. It's going to be difficult heavy lifting and serious policy debate
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Thank you for fine positive information from the very industry that produces the product being discussed in this article. In media circles, this is referred to as propaganda. If you're going to present a piece from Alberta Oil and Gas Quarterly maybe provide another article from a less biased source that goes into the drawbacks of the energy source, including production, storage, use, by products, and risks.
Here's a more rigorous take on natural gas as a replacement for coal.
"In the context of an energy transition that may take decades the U.S. does not have 20 years for natural gas to kill coal and replace oil in power and transportation, respectively, followed by another 50 years needed to replace now-entrenched natural gas with renewables and/or nuclear power plants powering electric cars and trucks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects natural gas to be producing one-third of U.S. electricity in 2030 and technologies that might make natural gas near-zero carbon, like those that capture and store CO2, have yet to be tried or even tested on the gaseous fossil fuel."
"But natural gas has a climate downside—it’s mostly composed of methane. “Methane is a potent greenhouse gas,” said energy researcher Adam Brandt of Stanford University. The gas is about 30 times better at holding in the atmosphere’s heat compared with carbon dioxide. So if enough methane leaks during production, natural gas’s slim advantage over other fuels could be wiped out."
To find those gains we must also be extremely careful in how natural gas is accessed and how it is transported. Fracking is not a good way to access natural gas fields. They pollute ground water and aquifers, and destabilize strata. More importantly, natural gas leaks counter any gains. Improvements need to be made across the board to make natural gas a game changer.
Quote:
Remember when I said we should export our technology as well as our resources to help other countries?
From the Scientific American article linked above.
"... technologies that might make natural gas near-zero carbon, like those that capture and store CO2, have yet to be tried or even tested on the gaseous fossil fuel."
We have a very long way to go to make sure our "technology" works, and then can also secure the products where we are certain they don't leak, as the leakage is more damaging than the savings. I believe we can get there, but it is too early to be hanging the mission accomplished banner and patting each other on the back.
Quote:
I bet you Greta and her fellow morons aren't talking about this amazing technology, and how revolutionary the energy sector in Canada has been to lowering emissions and creating a cleaner environment.
Yeah, you grabbed your sign and you really told her!
The reason they aren't talking about this amazing "technology" is that in its current state it is just as damaging to the atmosphere as the fuel it is supposed to replace. The Canadian energy sector is not revolutionary, no more than the automobile industry is revolutionary. There are opportunities to use the resources better, but the innovation and technology is being developed or delivered quick enough. Its too early to be taking swipes at those who are speaking truth to power. Natural gas could be a great asset in solving our climate change battle, but we also need to recognize that we are using a product that is more damaging to counter another. We need to handle natural gas very carefully for it become part of the solution, and we are not quite there yet.
On the technology side, Alberta should be leading the world in finding ways to use natural gas to generate electricity and do so in extremely safe ways for consumers and the environment. Alberta does this, and builds some manufacturing capacity to export the "technology" then there will be something there to get excited about.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I don't think many people have really heard the specifics of climate change outcomes.
Firstly, even if we stop using fossill fuels this second the results are going to be devastating. It's what we do next that determines how much more devastating.
Sea levels at the bare minimum will rise enough to displace between 190-340 Million people by 2050. These people will need a place to live, where will they go?
Places like Africa, Europe, South East Asia, and South America will lose vast swaths of arable land. Where will these people find food?
Severe weather events will be yearly. Who can live in places with tornados every year? Category 5 hurricanes every year? Wildfires burning all the forests?
I feel like when people discuss climate change they aren't internalizing what the future already holds
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I don't think many people have really heard the specifics of climate change outcomes.
Firstly, even if we stop using fossill fuels this second the results are going to be devastating. It's what we do next that determines how much more devastating.
Sea levels at the bare minimum will rise enough to displace between 190-340 Million people by 2050. These people will need a place to live, where will they go?
Places like Africa, Europe, South East Asia, and South America will lose vast swaths of arable land. Where will these people find food?
Severe weather events will be yearly. Who can live in places with tornados every year? Category 5 hurricanes every year? Wildfires burning all the forests?
Great comments. This is exactly how we have to think.
Quote:
I feel like when people discuss climate change they aren't internalizing what the future already holds
This is maybe where I see a problem. People are internalizing it, but only in their limited perspective. Sea level rise doesn't matter to someone living in Alberta. Wild fires don't impact someone living in the concrete jungle far away from forests. Changes in climate don't seem problematic to someone who conflates weather with climate. Until we all begin to understand the greater impact we will be hard pressed to accept that big changes need to be made.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
On the climate change issue, most of the layman conversation is around CO2. New Era's post on the downside of natural gas and methane is coincidental as I was just looking at this website;
I prefer to look at graphs with a timeline longer than modern history to get a feel for what the earth has handled historically. Temperature, sea level, CO2 have all reached levels beyond where we are at today (I understand the current trend could push us to exceed these levels). Methane, on the other hand is shockingly high - more than double what has been calculated in the last 800,000 years. I'm surprised this hasn't received more, or any, mainstream news coverage.
Even if all the concerns around methane are real(and I suspect like everything else, they get greatly exaggerated) we are still better to transition to natural gas from coal. Methane is much shorter lived in the atmosphere, around 10 years, vs 100. Though even that lifetime is kind of an unknown, as shown at the link below. So by replacing coal with what the worst case says is equivalent emmisions, you have really cut the long term potential by 90%. If we find alternatives by say 2050 and close all the NG plants, that means a relatively instant drop of greenhouse emmisions, vs needing 100 years for the CO2 to dissipate.
The other reason I question the panic around it is that atmospheric concentrations fossil fuel isotopes do not correlate with the increase:
Quote:
Schwietzke’s research suggests that methane emissions from fossil fuels are higher than countries’ self-reported inventories suggest, and they may even be increasing. And yet, he explained via email, methane derived from fossil fuels is enriched with carbon-13—a rare, heavy isotope of carbon—and air samples show that the amount of carbon-13-flavored methane is dropping worldwide.
The drop seems to rule out fossil fuel emissions, wildfires, or biomass cook stoves as the reason for the post-2007 methane surge. All those sources of methane, to a greater or lesser extent, are enriched in carbon-13, not depleted.
It’s a counterintuitive finding: methane from fossil fuels is higher than we thought, but it seems to be making up a smaller share of total global emissions. In his email, Schwietzke wrote, “The decline in the 13-C isotope of methane in the atmosphere indicates that microbial sources must have an increasing share of total methane emissions globally.”
If fracking and natural gas consumption were the sole cause of increased atmospheric methane, we would expect to not see a plateau in the 2000's, and a far more rapid increase of the rates seen before 2000. Plus the isotope issue. I think there is far more uncertainty around methane than is presented in the media and I think we need to figure that out before saying natural gas is just as bad as coal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I'm double quoting this post because it hits what I think is the Central issue with the climate change problem.
Scientists are convinced we are already on a catastrophic course. The trouble is, the ramifications for what we've already done won't hit for a few decades and not changing course will make it vastly worse. Think hundreds of millions of refugees, worsening wars and famines, and unpredictable weather events. These things are already likely to happen, only we don't know how much worse than that.
Now, with that framework, tell people if they want they can just drive less, consume less, burn less, etc. It's just not workable. We can discuss freedom to drive a 1 ton dually to haul the holiday trailer and fill it for cheap subsidized fuel, and we can discuss banning them. One is environmentally unwise, the other is politically and practically impossible. The answer still lies in the middle through legislation though, and that's why we need to discuss what people "need" and "should". The important changes will not come because people will just choose to do the right thing. It's going to be difficult heavy lifting and serious policy debate
If it's as dire as you say then anyone who takes a holiday by plane should stop immediately. It's unnecessary. Im sure well over 50% of travel I unnecessary.
Swapping my Tacoma for a Corolla isn’t going to do #### all when China and India are firing up dirty energy on the reg.
The arrogance of people suggesting we "just don't understand" how dire it is, is frankly insulting. I get it. It's horrible. We will either collectively do something or we won't. Until then let me make my choices.
__________________
Last edited by corporatejay; 10-30-2019 at 10:57 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
It gets me every single time I hear the argument that natural gas is bad as well and therefore shouldn't be seen as a clean option. It really is the reason we can't get anywhere.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
It gets me every single time I hear the argument that natural gas is bad as well and therefore shouldn't be seen as a clean option. It really is the reason we can't get anywhere.
How about: China and India are bad so we might as well do #### all. That’s my favourite.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
