Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

He's just got his numbers wrong

He's just got his numbers wrong. IIRC, current estimate for oil sands production is 1 BTU expended to extract 3 BTU of fuels. (I'd heard somebody claiming better than that, but I don't think they're in production yet...)

So very scientific, Avatar - you "heard" somebody claim something or other, so it's automatically true. Which distinguished institution gave you an advanced degree in the sciences? Hope this one is acceptable to you; check particularly page 35:

http://web.mit.edu/1.149/www/lecture16/lec16slides.pdf

Quote:

[...]


Sector by sector

Energy supply
More efficient supply, renewable sources, shifts from coal to less polluting gas and nuclear power will play a role in the short to medium term, the IPCC report says. Managing such a transition requires "active policy involvement" such as reducing subsidies for fossil fuels while helping cleaner technology with renewable quotas for power companies and subsidies. The EU has pledged to generate 20% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The report says concern over energy security, combined with the development of power infrastructure in the developing world, creates an opportunity to reduce emissions cheaply.

Here is a very good example of the perhaps unconscious deception that infects the propaganda of environmentalists on the issue of global warming and other matters. I believe much of it springs from a, perhaps understandable, impulse to evade fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies in the agenda of these advocates.

Note the following phrase -- " More efficient supply, renewable sources, shifts from coal to less polluting gas and nuclear power will play a role in the short to medium term, the IPCC report says. ". The truth is that, in terms of greenhouse gases, forty year old coal fired power generating plants are less polluting per unit of useful energy produced than are the most modern gas turbine plants. There are several reasons for this; (1) The thermodynamic efficiency (ratio of useful mechanical energy produced to thermal energy released in combustion) of a coal-fired steam plant (with reheat) is about 27%, while that of even the most modern gas turbine plant is at best about 20%. That means that about 35% more CO2 is prodduced by a gas turbine plant than a coal fired steam plant per unit of electrical power output. (2) Natural gas is itself a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 ( about 20 times more), and leakage from thousands of miles of pressurized pipelines is substantial.

The second key element here is that it is positively deceptive to assiciate natural gas plants with nuclear ones in terms of the greenhouse gass issue. The reason is that nuclear plants produce no atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions whatever, while - as outlined above - gas plants are worse than the coal fired plants they increasingly replace.

The motivation for this deception is that the environmental agenda supports the replacement of coal with natural gas because of the relatively lower particulate, sulfur and nitrous emissions associated with the latter. Their problem is that they don't wish to acknowledge the complexities and contradictions involved in their agenda. Instead they deceive and falsely suggest that what they advocate is a self-consistent program of actions - when in fact it is the opposite.

georgeob1 wrote:

You know, that must be it.

I also must admit that some of us are crazy too. Consider Blatham.

Those footsteps in the dark parking garage. In a trenchcoat pocket, a small Irish flag soaked in ether or, you wonder before sliding into unconsciousness, perhaps it might be iguana urine...

He's just got his numbers wrong. IIRC, current estimate for oil sands production is 1 BTU expended to extract 3 BTU of fuels. (I'd heard somebody claiming better than that, but I don't think they're in production yet...)

You wanna give us some authoritative cites for those figures, georgeob? According to wikipedia ("fossil fuel power plants" is the article), fossil fuel plants typically run 36-38% thermodynamic efficiency (which is coal-fired--and brown coal plants (non-anthracite) run lower), while the latest gas turbine plant efficioency is in the 60%+ range. Not to menmtion the fact that basic thermodynamics would say that gas is more efficient, because it combusts at higher temperature and higher pressure--the same reason that diesel train locomotives running hotter and higher pressures drove coal or oil-fired boiler at atmospheric pressure steam engines into extinction--because they were more efficient. Your data seems unlikely.

The lower-pollution rationale for natural gas plants is certainly true too--and thank environmentalists for the fact that your lungs are pink and healthy instead of dirty gray and potentially diseased, because it sure wasn't the power companies that did it on their own.

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

You know, that must be it.

I also must admit that some of us are crazy too. Consider Blatham.

Those footsteps in the dark parking garage. In a trenchcoat pocket, a small Irish flag soaked in ether or, you wonder before sliding into unconsciousness, perhaps it might be iguana urine...

I think I hit a nerve....

Thursday, April 26, 2007




TORONTO -- The installation of one million solar panels on 346 hectares of land near Sarnia will make Ontario home to one of the largest solar farms in the world, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan announced Thursday.

"The McGuinty government is committed to building a cleaner, greener energy future for Ontarians," Duncan told reporters at a news conference held to announce the investment by OptiSolar Farms Canada, a division of California-based OptiSolar Inc.

"This project alone will contribute 40 megawatts to the grid by 2010 - the next largest photovoltaic project in North America was announced on Monday and it is only 15 megawatts."

The project, which will cost an estimated $300 million, involves installation of the half-metre-by-one-metre solar panels on the equivalent of 419 Canadian football fields.

That said, the massive undertaking will still only produce enough power to sustain 6,000 homes.

The power will be expensive. Under the terms of the agreement signed with the Ontario government, OptiSolar will be paid 42 cents per kilowatt hour produced over the 20-year-term of the contract.

And the system will generate only 40 megawatts when the sun peaks in the sky on clear, sunny summer days: When nights, cloudy weather and short days are taken into account over the course of whole year, it will contribute only about eight megawatts of power per day on average to the Ontario grid.

Total system demand late Thursday afternoon was just under 18,000 megawatts; peak demand in the summer can soar to more than 27,000 megawatts.

OptiSolar vice-president Peter Carrie, who said Sarnia was chosen because it is one of Ontario's sunniest areas, conceded solar power is expensive now but predicted its costs will decline as the technology improves.

"We're at the stage with solar where over the next five to 10 years the cost will be dramatically lower than they are now," he said.

The McGuinty government's electricity sustainability plan calls for 15,700 megawatts of installed renewable power by 2025. Currently , about 7,900 megawatts are already online through existing hydroelectric, wind and other projects and an additional 1,700 megawatts are either already being produced or in development.

Conservative Leader John Tory says solar power has to be part of the supply mix but it's not the answer to Ontario's electricity generating needs.

"We still need to look after the base load power, which is why I suggested we're going to have to honest with people and say probably more nuclear is going to be necessary."

Tory has not indicated how many new nuclear stations he believes will be required. The Liberal plan calls for the construction of 1,000 megawatts of new nuclear generation - one or two units depending on their size - at an existing nuclear site.

NDP legislature member Peter Tabuns said that while he welcomes the announcement of the OptiSolar project "the thing people have to keep in mind is that ultimately this is a government that is going to go nuclear.

"It is going to make announcements about these smaller projects to make it look as though it is green."

The NDP argues additional construction of nuclear plants could be avoided if the government did more to encourage conservation and energy efficiency.

Tom Adams of the energy watchdog group Energy Probe, noted that even though 42 cent is as much as seven times higher than the current price of power (it has averaged 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour since January), the amount of power involved is so small relative to the total that it won't have a huge impact on electricity bills in the short term.

"But when you add it to all of the other things that are going on, it's very clear that this is setting us on the path toward substantially higher electricity prices," he said, noting government is paying 11 cents per kilowatt hour for wind generation and is committed to paying as much as 7.1 cents per kilowatt hour for power generated by the Bruce nuclear station. Electricity generated by existing coal, hydro and the nuclear power plants run by Ontario Power Generation are significantly less.

i noticed that the report high seas is citing was issued "10/18/01" -
or am i mistaken ?
a lot of things have changed since 2001 - and the oilsands seem to be operating quite profitably judging by the stockmarket .

as a matter of interest the norwegian state oil company "statoil" has just bought out a privately held alberta oilsands-operator for 2 billion dollars -
and vice-president cheney also paid a visit recently ; he seemed to be favourably impressed - i don't know of that is good or bad for canada !
hbg

...., but i think consumption - particularly "frivolous" consumption - has to be reduced , if necessary by penalizing the wasters of energy .
hbg

hamburger wrote:

i noticed that the report high seas is citing was issued "10/18/01" -
or am i mistaken ?

An actual reading of the report will clear this up in your mind, Hamburger..

Even compared to Otto and Deisel cycle internal combustion engines, gas turbines are fuel hogs. They are relatively small & compact; offer special advantages in aircraft applications; and use cheaper petroleum distillates; but produce far more combustion by-products (CO2) per unit of output than any of these alternatives. This is rather elementary.

i noticed that the report high seas is citing was issued "10/18/01" -
or am i mistaken ?
a lot of things have changed since 2001 - and the oilsands seem to be oprating quite profitably judging by the stockmarket .