Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
I Hope Obama Jumps the Right Way on Canada's Tar Sands
One story, two contradictory reports.
The first, on Bloomberg news, suggests that ahead of a meeting with Canada's prime minister, Barack Obama believes the US's northern neighbour can green its tar sands, becoming compatible with his clean energy revolution.
The second, in Nature, suggests that his environmental measures will destroy tar sands production - which mostly supplies the US - by making it prohibitively expensive to sell south of the border.
I think you can probably guess which outcome I'm hoping for. For the sake of argument, let's accept the following improbable propositions:
1 That the Albertan tar sands operation can adopt universal carbon capture and storage, cutting the emissions from processing the fuel by 80-90%.
2 That this can be done so cheaply that tar production remains economically viable.
3 That it can happen quickly enough to help prevent global climate breakdown.
This still leaves us with two intractable problems. The first is that even if the extraction and processing of tar sands produces scarcely more carbon than the production of ordinary petroleum, the stuff will still be burnt in cars, and there's no foreseeable carbon capture and storage technology which can deal with that. We will have a chance of preventing full-scale climate breakdown only if we reduce the amount of fossil fuel we take out of the ground.
The second is that carbon pollution is just one of the impacts of tar sands production. The strip-mining destroys vast tracts of forest and wetland. The processing poisons great volumes of water, which sit in ever-growing toxic lagoons, or are flushed down the rivers, at potential hazard to both wildlife and human health. You have only to see some pictures of these operations to recognise that there can be no such thing as clean tar sands, just as - when all the impacts are taken into account - there is no such thing as clean coal.
Alberta's oil production ensures that Canada is trashing its own environment, and is further from meeting its Kyoto commitments than any other country that has ratified the treaty. Its government has no intention of closing the Alberta tar patch. Let's hope Obama jumps the right way when he meets Canadian PM Stephen Harper today, and ensures that this industry becomes impossible to sustain.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllYesterday crude oil was selling for $34.75 a barrel, down from $140.00 a barrel peak last summer. It’s my understanding that the corporate “on the books” cost of production of oil from tar sands is above $50.00 a barrel with some estimates as high as $70.00 a barrel. http://tinyurl.com/ab6f3v
With crude prices this low the economic incentive for “green” energy projects becomes very hard to justify politically.
America’s overly subsidized ethanol industry is in dire straits, VeraSun, the second largest U.S. producer of ethanol from corn filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection October 27, 2008. Ethanol experts doubt that even after reorganization VeraSun can be made profitable. The bursting of the commodities bubble, largely under reported, is impacting the economy as much as the collapse of the financial sector. Sectors like agriculture, mining, and steel* are all being impacted negatively.
With the downward spiral of commodity prices promoting green energy will become much harder as producing energy from conventional sources falls in cost.
*With oil at $34.75 and gas at $2.00 a gallon expect to see Big Oil post yet another set of record earnings next quarter.
"Yesterday crude oil was selling for $34.75 a barrel"
That's for West Texas Intermediate. Lately West Texas Intermediate is trading for considerably less than for other varieties that are more typically used to create gasoline used in the US.
"With oil at $34.75 and gas at $2.00 a gallon expect to see Big Oil post yet another set of record earnings next quarter."
"Big Oil" is a pretty nebulous term of limited use. Refining "crude oil" into gasoline is only one function of "Big Oil". The ability for a refining operation to make a profit is based on crack spread:
http://www.nymex.com/media/crackspread.pdf
Thus, if there is in fact a big difference between the price of "crude oil" and the wholesale price of gasoline, there can be greater profit. But you have to look at the correct variety of "crude oil".
OTOH, "Big Oil" also produces "crude oil" from oil feilds, with more or less steady expenses on a per barrel basis. Thus, with lower prices for that commodity, it becomes harder to make profit on that function.
Obviously, a given price level on crude is a two edged sword for "Big Oil".
Albertan oil production uses more energy than it produces while making a terrible toxic mess of the land. But, the money is flowing and few Albertans will even admit they've heard of Entropy.
If this were a Heinlein novel and smart people were in charge of the world we would find a way to convert the energy in the tar-sands into hydrogen and lock up the carbon underground. Then we'd be hydrogen dealers. Unfortunately, this ain't a novel, unless it's Lord of the Rings and we're Orcs.
Dear President Obama:
Please instead consider a proven and endless source of clean, cheap, universally abundant source of energy, geothermal. It emits no CO2 and can power everything from homes, factories to transportation:
Geothermal FAQs
Read the frequently asked questions and their corresponding answers regarding the use of geothermal energy.
What are the benefits of using geothermal energy?
Answer: Several attributes make it a good source of energy.
*
First, it's clean. Energy can be extracted without burning a fossil fuel such as coal, gas, or oil. Geothermal fields produce only about one-sixth of the carbon dioxide that a relatively clean natural-gas-fueled power plant produces, and very little if any, of the nitrous oxide or sulfur-bearing gases. Binary plants, which are closed cycle operations, release essentially no emissions.
*
Geothermal energy is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Geothermal power plants have average availabilities of 90% or higher, compared to about 75% for coal plants.
*
Geothermal power is homegrown, reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Why is geothermal energy a renewable resource?
Answer: Because its source is the almost unlimited amount of heat generated by the Earth's core. Even in geothermal areas dependent on a reservoir of hot water, the volume taken out can be reinjected, making it a sustainable energy source.
Where is geothermal energy available?
Answer: Hydrothermal resources - reservoirs of steam or hot water - are available primarily in the western states, Alaska, and Hawaii. However, Earth energy can be tapped almost anywhere with geothermal heat pumps and direct-use applications. Other enormous and world-wide geothermal resources - hot dry rock and magma, for example - are awaiting further technology development.
What are the environmental impacts of using geothermal energy?
Answer: Geothermal technologies offer many environmental advantages over conventional power generation:
*
Emissions are low. Only excess steam is emitted by geothermal flash plants. No air emissions or liquids are discharged by binary geothermal plants, which are projected to become the dominant technology in the near future.
*
Salts and dissolved minerals contained in geothermal fluids are usually reinjected with excess water back into the reservoir at a depth well below groundwater aquifers. This recycles the geothermal water and replenishes the reservoir. The City of Santa Rosa, California, pipes the city's treated wastewater up to The Geysers power plants to be used for reinjection fluid. This system will prolong the life of the reservoir as it recycles the treated wastewater.
*
Some geothermal plants do produce some solid materials, or sludges, that require disposal in approved sites. Some of these solids are now being extracted for sale (zinc, silica, and sulfur, for example), making the resource even more valuable and environmentally friendly.
What is the visual impact of geothermal technologies?
Answer: District heating systems and geothermal heat pumps are easily integrated into communities with almost no visual impact. Geothermal power plants use relatively small acreages, and don't require storage, transportation, or combustion of fuels. Either no emissions or just steam are visible. These qualities reduce the overall visual impact of power plants in scenic regions.
Is it possible to deplete geothermal reservoirs?
Answer: The long-term sustainability of geothermal energy production has been demonstrated at the Lardarello field in Italy since 1913, at the Wairakei field in New Zealand since 1958, and at The Geysers field in California since 1960. Pressure and production declines have been experienced at some plants, and operators have begun reinjecting water to maintain reservoir pressure. The City of Santa Rosa, California, pipes its treated wastewater up to The Geysers to be used as reinjection fluid, thereby prolonging the life of the reservoir while recycling the treated wastewater.
How much does geothermal energy cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh)?
Answer: At The Geysers, power is sold at $0.03 to $0.035 per kWh. A power plant built today would probably require about $0.05 per kWh. Some plants can charge more during peak demand periods.
What does it cost to develop a geothermal power plant?
Answer: Costs of a geothermal plant are heavily weighted toward early expenses, rather than fuel to keep them running. Well drilling and pipeline construction occur first, followed by resource analysis of the drilling information. Next is design of the actual plant. Power plant construction is usually completed concurrent with final field development. The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S., probably $3000 to $5000/kWe for a small (<1Mwe) power plant. Operating and maintenance costs range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can run at greater than 90% availability (i.e., producing more than 90% of the time), but running at 97% or 98% can increase maintenance costs. Higher-priced electricity justifies running the plant 98% of the time because the resulting higher maintenance costs are recovered.
What makes a site good for geothermal electric development?
Answer: Hot geothermal fluid with low mineral and gas content, shallow aquifers for producing and reinjecting the fluid, location on private land to simplify permitting, proximity to existing transmission lines or load, and availability of make-up water for evaporative cooling. Geothermal fluid temperature should be at least 300º F, although plants are operating on fluid temperatures as low as 210º F.
How much water does a plant require?
Answer: The flow required depends on the temperature of the fluid, the ambient (sink) characteristics, and the pumping power required to supply and dispose of the fluid. Excluding fluid pumping, a closed-loop binary-cycle geothermal power plant would need 450 to 600 gallons per minute (gpm) to generate 1 MW from a 300° F fluid with an air temperature of 60° F. If the fluid temperature were only 210° F, one would need 1,300 to 1,500 gpm to generate the same amount of power. If an evaporative cooling system were used, 45 to 75 gpm of make-up (clean) cooling water would also be required to generate 1 MW.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html
I FORWARD THIS INFO TO PEOPLE I KNOW THAT IS INTERESTED IN SOLAR ENERGY, MAYBE THIS WILL BE AN ADDED FEATURE. wHY DON'T YOU SEND THIS INFO TO
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
1600 PENNSLYVANIA AVE.
WASHINGTON DC
20502.
CAN'T HURT.
The electrical output of geothermal sources can be doubled or even tripled over that obtained from the first extraction by feeding what otherwise be "waste heat" (5-10 times the primary electrical output) to the Atmospheric Vortex Engine, which can produce electricity both from this stream as well as from Convective Available Potential Energy often present in the atmosphere (residual solar energy that is the energy source for thunderstorms). Learn about CAPE from http://tornadochaser.net
By extracting energy from CAPE, during certain portions of the day and evening instead of the geothermal stream, a given geothermal source is given time to "regenerate" its heat supplies underground and will last longer.
See http://vortexengine.ca or,
scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1338
Interesting CD chose this Monbiot piece instead of his item refuting George Will.
karlof1, it's probably because Obama was in Canada today. I heard him talk about "carbon capture" from the tar sands - I am one of those that is highly skeptical of that technology, and I don't think it is even desirable to go that route.
I also read the other Monbiot piece you referenced, as well as the George Will article. That chap should change his name to Geroge Shill - it's unbelievable that pretenders like him think that they somehow know more than all the scientists who have spent years, if not decades, in this field. And there are countless parrots repeating the same thing, saying that the scientists and the UN are making it up - obviously the oil companies and other right wing morons are obviously more trustworthy, right?
The CO2 level in the atmosphere is at 430 ppm right now. Last fall, I remember, it was around 385 ppm. 450 ppm is considered to be the tipping point, beyond which we won’t be able to do anything to stop a runaway climate change.
I realize how this is going to sound, but I’m starting to think that, for the sake of our survival, we should start praying that this recession quickly turns into a total economic collapse.
Cheers!
Totally... hear you on that one, Bea. It is time to drastically re-engineering how we engage with the physical world around us as a society. Maybe an economic collapse would open new doors for real sustainability. Hopefully it would not lead to another World War.
Here are some great video's George Monbiot has done recently.
"George Monbiot meets ... Yvo de Boer. In the first of a remarkable series of video interviews, Britain's leading green commentator, George Monbiot, charges the UN's leading climate change official with lacking ambition for a global emissions deal, and takes him to task over expensive carbon offset schemes and his support for the US president, George Bush. In the coming weeks, Monbiot takes on the bosses of Shell and the International Energy Agency and more."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/08/monbiot-yvo-de-boer-climate
"George Monbiot meets ... Shaun Spiers. In the third of his groundbreaking encounters with the figures whose decisions shape our environment, George Monbiot gives the head of the countryside watchdog, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, an unforgettable grilling, asking why it opposes windfarms - but not opencast coal mines"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/18/monbiot-cpre-wind-coal
"George Monbiot meets ... Jeroen van de Veer. In the latest of his groundbreaking encounters with the figures whose decisions shape our environment, George Monbiot challenges Jeroen van de Veer, chief executive of oil and gas giant Shell, on ethics, greenwash advertising, renewable energy investments and gas-flaring in Nigeria"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jan/06/george-monbiot-jeroen-van-de-veer
"George Monbiot meets ... Fatih Birol. In the latest in the groundbreaking interview series, Britain's leading green commentator tackles the International Energy Authority's chief economist, who reveals for the first time a startling and worrying prediction for the date of peak oil."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/15/fatih-birol-george-monbiot
"George Monbiot meets ... Andy HarrisonIn the latest of his groundbreaking encounters with the figures whose decisions shape our environment, George Monbiot meets Andy Harrison, the chief executive of easyjet, and takes him to task over the budget airline's plans for an "ecojet", growing carbon emissions from the aviation industry and the company's carbon offsetting scheme"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jan/14/george-monbiot-andy-harrison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
Correction:
This what The Guardian has to say about the tar sands:
"There are estimated to be 1.1tn barrels of extractable unconventional oils in North America - Canadian tar sands and US oil shales - according to the Co-op and WWF report. In Canada alone it is hoped to produce 5m barrels a day, which would make the country one of the world's largest oil producers. The extremely energy intensive process means that if all of the reserves were exploited in the next century it would result in emissions of 980 giga-tonnes of CO2. This equates to an estimated rise in CO2 emissions of 49 and 65 parts per million when the world is already at 430ppm - 450 is considered to be a tipping point, the two organisations argue."
James Hansen says that the CO2 level is at 385ppm. According to The Guardian it's 430.
It's here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/29/oilandgascompanies.royaldutchshell
I've done some research, and The Guardian's figure doesn't seem to be accurate.
Sorry for posting inaccurate information.
If the U s military would get its butt back home and shut doun its navy and air force , and spy planes there would be no fuel shortage and the atmosphere would clear up on its own.
The tar sands are on Native People's (Six Nations) lands that were never surrendered to the Crown. Six Nations Peoples are opposed to tar sands development on their land. The Canadian Government is illegally allowing the development of tar sands on Native land. This is called genocide. Why is it that Mr. Monbiot ignores this reality? Why is it that Mr. Obama ignores this reality. Why is it that Canadian and American armed forces work together to suppress Native legal rights in these lands. Has anyone asked the Mohawk or the Lubicon Cree? What is it about genocide that white people do not understand?
Get informed. The TAR sands are NOT on the territories of the Six nations.
The 6 nations are in Southern Ontario and Quebec on the Canada US Border.
PK
Whether they are or they're not.... doesn't extracting the tar sands mean digging virtually everything up? Sort like clear cut logging... but we're talking about digging up everything. It's unjustifiable in any location.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Ed note: white phosphorous, dense metal super weapons, nuclear stick-up, missile defense, bailouts and propaganda!!
"doesn't extracting the tar sands mean digging virtually everything up?"
Yes.
"Sort like clear cut logging..."
More like open pit surface mining which is what it is.
"It's unjustifiable in any location."
You need to outline the case. Open pit mining is used for other mineral commodities. That's been "justified" somehow.
>>Whether they are or they're not.... doesn't extracting the tar sands mean digging virtually everything up? Sort like clear cut logging... but we're talking about digging up everything. It's unjustifiable in any location.
Yes it is. On a very small scale where the land reclaimed this might be less destructive.
That is not what they do however. The amount of land dug up is on a massive scale. Tailings ponds filled with toxic sludge dot the landscape.
This is worse then clear cut logging as every bit of "Overburden" is dug up and hauled away, the tarsands stripped away to the depths of dozens of feet and the land left a waste.
They also use steam injection methods in other areas but these use large amounts of water and burn off more natural gas to process the bitumen then the amount of energy extratced from the tar sands.
Yes it SHOULD be stopped but in order to do so people have to get their information correct.
In order to combat this we need to get our facts straight and those are.
1>This has nothing to do with the Six nations of South Ontario and Quebec.
2>The Lubicon Cree are a tribe of around 500 people near a community called Little Buffalo. This is in Western Alberta near the town of Peace River where there are no oil sands plants.
3>The Lubicon Cree are about the only tribe in Alberta that were not covered by treaty. They were overlooked during the process but the lands they claim will NOT encompass the Tar sands where these operations are ongoing.
4>The Natives who are seeing their health affected belong to the Chipewyan group which are a sub group of the dene peoples. They are not Cree.
Once more I lived up in that area. I visited the plants. When first opened the impact on the enviroment was minimal. Since I left there it has grown totally out of control . One reason I support Carbon taxes and the like is so we can wean ourselves from oil and the desire to wreak havoc on the enviroment.
Yes we have to end it but if we go to the people up there and say "this has to stop because it on six nations lands and is destroying the health of the Lubicon Cree" you will be announced as not knowing what you are talking about.
You are misinformed. Contact the Lubicon Cree.
The Lubicon Cree live near Peace River Alberta.
Please look at a map of Alberta.
the Oil sands plants are near FT McMurray Alberta. there are several hundred miles between them.
Yes you are right. The Lubicon Cree are fighting a pipeline through their land. See
http://tao.ca/~FOL/
The Mohawk are fighting land infringements for development.
Which are totally different issues.
Look I understand totally your concern with how the Aboriginals are treated. I feel very much the same way. I know about the sturggles of the Lubicon to be recognized as one of the first nations and to achieve their claims to land.
I just think it imperative we focus on facts when discussing the issues .
In regards to the Tar sands and the mining of such the FACT is we can not look to the Aboriginals to help us here in the way of LANDS Claims.
I would WELCOME a land claim being launched wherein such a case before the courts prevented further development.
The FACT is all land claims have been settled in the area where the tar sands are and there have been no real violations of the treaties on the part of the Government.
I KNOW about the lubicon, the pipeline being built across their traditional lands and the extraction of resources from what they consider THEIR traditinal territory.
I am in full support of their struggle. As I have said time and time again, I think it a crime to give resources of a region over to a Corporation.
They belong to the peoples living there.
Simple solution for dramatic change. Free public transit. Low tech. Available now. Inexpensive. Immediate benefits.
.
http://fptcanada.blogspot.com
.
the tar sands are not viable as it requires more energy to produce than the energy contained in the final product.
the tar sands are not viable because the peoples who live "around" the "pits" , suffer from statistically skewed rates of cancer far beyond the rest of the country.
the tar sands are not viable as the water required to process comes from the lowering and ever depleting ground waters of Northern Alberta.
"the tar sands are not viable as it requires more energy to produce than the energy contained in the final product."
Untrue. If true, they wouldn't mine and refine the sands, they would just directly sell the energy they would have used doing so.
wrong, jake. There is demand for liquid fuel for cars. cheap nearby natural gas is used for the extract. Natural gas is more expensive than oil when you consider delivery on a scale that oil is demanded and delivered.
http://fptcanada.blogspot.com
This was the original claim:
"the tar sands are not viable as it requires more energy to produce than the energy contained in the final product."
Then you said:
"There is demand for liquid fuel for cars. cheap nearby natural gas is used for the extract. Natural gas is more expensive than oil when you consider delivery on a scale that oil is demanded and delivered."
This comment does not address the original claim in any manner. So let's put it to rest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands#Input_energy
From the article:
"Approximately 1.0 to 1.25 gigajoules of natural gas are needed per barrel of bitumen extracted.[61] Since a barrel of oil equivalent is about 6.117 gigajoules, this produces about 5 or 6 times as much energy as is consumed."
So the original comment was nonsense.
>>>jakenewton wrote: From the article:
"Approximately 1.0 to 1.25 gigajoules of natural gas are needed per barrel of bitumen extracted.[61] Since a barrel of oil equivalent is about 6.117 gigajoules, this produces about 5 or 6 times as much energy as is consumed."
jakenewton, while debating the numbers, be careful not to get carried away by what you are defending.
Bitumen is at the bottom of a conventional distillation process refining natural crude oil - in fact, it's almost like the residue left over that's used for paving roads, roofing and so on, after recovering the more valuable products such as LPG, gasoline, diesel, etc. Natural gas is AT THE TOP.
What is happening at the Alberta tar sands operations is that they are using the BEST and CLEANEST fossil fuel, namely, natural gas, to produce steam to extract bitumen (not crude oil) from tar sands. This bitumen cannot even flow on its own - it needs to be sufficiently heated for that, before it can be processed to produce - get this - crude oil! It's called synthetic crude oil or syncrude - the starting material that's obtained straight out of the ground from a conventional oil well. THEN you refine this synthetic crude oil to get your other products such as gasoline and diesel. At every stage of conversion, you have to spend energy - I don't have the numbers to go all the way from tar sands (including the diesel burnt in those monster trucks and excavators through natural gas burning to produce bitumen - then using more energy to produce synthetic crude oil - BEFORE you can get your gasoline through a regular distillation/refining process, which also takes energy. But I'm pretty sure the overall efficiency numbers will look ugly. Why do we do this? Because of Americans' insatiable demand for oil, all the while making stupid statements on 'Middle East oil' and 'foreign oil' 'from countries that don't have our best interests at heart'!
"be careful not to get carried away by what you are defending."
Thank you for your response. Please be careful not to be confusing by remarks as "defending" anything. At issue was the simple question as to whether it takes greater amounts of energy to produce the final product in Alberta.
"What is happening at the Alberta tar sands operations *snip* "
I know all that, thanks just the same.
ok... one more time for all those who just quite can't figure things out for them selves, despite facts and historical evidence..
never ending , continuous expansion and consumption within a finite system of resources is NOT SUSTAINABLE period.
coupled with the "unregulated self correcting free market privatize everything" we have, in place of governance, things will get a lot worse a lot faster, than just running out of oil.
keep buying all the crap they say you just got to have , instead of what you really need, and go on blindly consuming like good little sheep, but don't come crying, "no one warned us" , when the shit really hits the fan,... me, I'm positioning myself and family as far from the "fan" as i can get.
Peak oil is not the problem. The problem is that there is still enough left to destroy the biosphere. It didn't peak soon enough.
http://freepublictransit.org