One important problem is that nuclear has a lead time of a minimum of 10 years whereas renewables have a lead time of about one year. We can't burn fossil fuels at the current rate for another 10 years waiting for nuclear.
I think the point is that it should stay in the ground.
It should be replaced by renewable energy.
Thanks for this clear and reasonable reply.
Clearly you don't just stop the flow of fossil fuel without having a replacement source.
The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.). This will cost money and there need to be strong market signals to accelerate the change. Something like a carbon tax with the proceeds going to develop renewable resources would work (for some value of $tax and $subsidy).
The problem is political (mainly in the US) where the corporations which count fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure as "assets" are able to corrupt the political process to prevent the necessary incentives from being put in place. I fear that it is already too late since we are now experiencing the effects of climate change and it will get much worse going forward. However, any reduction in CO2 now will help in the future.
It reduces the CO2 footprint of the oil by reducing how many fossil fuels are needed to extract it. You can't just "Stop using oil" that's not possible, even remotely. So get over.
Even reducing the CO2 cost of extraction, this oil is very dirty and produces more CO2.
Yes, it's hard to stop using oil but not impossible....
"So get over."... ?
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This isn't present technology, this is future technology. In other words you are using old data to tarnish the image of an improved technology, let me call you a green liar maybe even a green troll.
This does help with reducing the CO2 impact of extraction but not of transport and refining... so still should leave this oil in the ground.
The rest of your post is gibberish so I can't respond.
Old geezer here.
My school lunch was a "standard meal" and cost 27 cents. We paid it to a sweet little old lady in cash. She knew us all so no chance for anonymity.
I knew it was the teachers fault.
Teachers are running the cafeteria now... what's next?... the school buses (they are death traps, I hear).
This is a good example of greenwashing.
They're using solar steam generators to extract heavy crude oil and tar sands. This oil is difficult to extract and environmentally costly to refine.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This oil should probably be left in the ground.
Well I have a theory. I has help up in all circumstances I have observed over the few decades I have spent as a tax paying citizen.
When things are free, expected outcomes, which would generally benefit subject populations never materialize..."
Ah, yes... the good old protestant work ethic... we must suffer and sacrifice...
I guess that "free" (tax paid) libraries, fire protection, police service, roads, etc. just don't work.
I have a few examples:
1: Collapse of the Canadian cod fishery industry
Tragedy of the commons. This is greed. Nothing to do with an infinite resource (bandwidth).
2: The extreme stress experienced by the so called "socialist" medical care system wherever it can be found. Result will be failure inevitably.
I have heard the stories about the failure of European health care systems... they manage to deliver better health outcomes at half the cost of our system (But I'm sure they are about to collapse...)
3: The obvious poor quality elementary and post elementary pupils western countries produce compared to kids from the Asian subcontinent where monies paid by hard-working parents, or even students themselves.
"Obvious" to no one but you.
4: Hunger in some so called underdeveloped countries where starvation is obvious in the midst of lush green vegetation.
Let them eat leaves!
Not exactly a free market when you are picking favorites and subsidizing industry. This really distorts the market.
As for "the people can just throw the bums out if they don't like the way they are spending their money"... this is remarkably naive.
They already have your IP address.
I find it ironic that all of these "free market" people are so keen on providing subsidies, etc. to corporations. Rick Perry, a staunch "free market" Republican is famous for running around handing out Texas state government subsidies to hand-picked corporations. You can call this socialism, crony capitalism or fascism... it's all basically corrupt and screws the 99% in favor of the needy 1%.
In Nevada, they can't write a law exempting a specific company from taxes, etc. but to get around this they write the law with enough specifics to practically make it apply to only a specific company.
In Tesla's case, the new law says "any company" which invests at least $3.5 billion and manufactures electric cars... etc. so theoretically another company could qualify for the exemption but not likely to find another company which meets all the criteria.
Maybe the cesspool that is the tar sands region is driving them out.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
