^ yeah, there was similar hypocrisy when the protesters were boycotting the KM pipeline through Burnaby. Lots of people in the community drove there, from their paved forests, to say 'don't pave the forest for oil'. Liberals will just keep reiterating their 'opinions' over and over until maybe you agree - that's how they work. Look at Duncan here in this thread - classic example.
Guy makes valid points. We need petrochemical-derived products. What he doesn't address is that over 80% of all the world's oil production that goes up in smoke as fuel, never to be utilized again while producing greenhouse gases that are indisputably linked to climate change.
I've read we use 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil per day on the planet. So at 80%, 2 856 000 000 gallons go's up in smoke as fuel as you stated.
Now lets address what you said he failed to cover in the interview.
How do we develop a fuel source to replace the over 2.5 billion gallons of petro products that we use to sustain life as we know it on Planet Earth? To accomplish this momentous task I would think we would actually need to ramp up oil production, no?
The development of this new source of energy and the changes to the infrastructure are going to require massive amounts of energy to complete. Not to mention the time such a huge undertaking would require, people are still going to need to burn petro-fuel while the project is underway.
Another hurdle would be financing such a project, we rely on the oil patch not only for day to day living, but its our number 1 export. We shut that down, and our other top 5 exports will also go down with it.
Too me it feels like we have 20 minutes of air left. There is another tank of air, but its 25 minutes away. Everyone is screaming to stop using the air.
^ Turdeau already gave us the answer, we'll build the economy 'from the heart out'. World problem solved.
I've read we use 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil per day on the planet. So at 80%, 2 856 000 000 gallons go's up in smoke as fuel as you stated.
Now lets address what you said he failed to cover in the interview.
How do we develop a fuel source to replace the over 2.5 billion gallons of petro products that we use to sustain life as we know it on Planet Earth? To accomplish this momentous task I would think we would actually need to ramp up oil production, no?
The development of this new source of energy and the changes to the infrastructure are going to require massive amounts of energy to complete. Not to mention the time such a huge undertaking would require, people are still going to need to burn petro-fuel while the project is underway.
Another hurdle would be financing such a project, we rely on the oil patch not only for day to day living, but its our number 1 export. We shut that down, and our other top 5 exports will also go down with it.
Too me it feels like we have 20 minutes of air left. There is another tank of air, but its 25 minutes away. Everyone is screaming to stop using the air.
Why does it seem as though you think transitioning to alternative sources of power involves building the death star that beams hippy power to the country? We are not talking about a "project" here, and quite honestly the free market will do most of the work as power from other sources continues to drop.
I've read we use 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil per day on the planet. So at 80%, 2 856 000 000 gallons go's up in smoke as fuel as you stated.
Now lets address what you said he failed to cover in the interview.
How do we develop a fuel source to replace the over 2.5 billion gallons of petro products that we use to sustain life as we know it on Planet Earth? To accomplish this momentous task I would think we would actually need to ramp up oil production, no?
The development of this new source of energy and the changes to the infrastructure are going to require massive amounts of energy to complete. Not to mention the time such a huge undertaking would require, people are still going to need to burn petro-fuel while the project is underway.
Another hurdle would be financing such a project, we rely on the oil patch not only for day to day living, but its our number 1 export. We shut that down, and our other top 5 exports will also go down with it.
Too me it feels like we have 20 minutes of air left. There is another tank of air, but its 25 minutes away. Everyone is screaming to stop using the air.
Cuz no one in Canada makes their living off of alternative energy… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Canada
And no one has ever built a vehicle that doesn't run off of fossil fuel yet - how are we going to build non-fossil fuel vehicles??
Hate to say it, but these are the same tired arguments that the coal fired steam train lobby trotted out when everyone started to want internal combustion engine cars…
A few biomass power plants are coming online in BC this year (I know, I know not the "greenest")
It seems BC has a large potential for commercial Geothermal power plants.
Has MetroVan got closer to a decision on if garbage incineration is going to happen? And where? The NIMBYism is strong with this issue. Again I realize that it isn't "green" but neither is trucking garbage up the valley to stick in a hole.
Maybe the Canucks owners will power their Squamton ski resort with MetroVan garbage! :idea:
Why slag free swag?:rolleyes:
ummm, as your doctor i recommend against riding with a scaphoid fracture.
The incinerator won't happen - there isn't enough waste locally available to make it cost effective. Landfill covers are made such nowadays that they can be tapped for methane gas
Cuz no one in Canada makes their living off of alternative energy… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Canada
And no one has ever built a vehicle that doesn't run off of fossil fuel yet - how are we going to build non-fossil fuel vehicles??
Hate to say it, but these are the same tired arguments that the coal fired steam train lobby trotted out when everyone started to want internal combustion engine cars…
You might have missed the 2.8 billion gallons of fuel used daily, and the fact it's a global problem. Our borders don't hermetically seal us from the rest of the world. I wish they did.
Why does it seem as though you think transitioning to alternative sources of power involves building the death star that beams hippy power to the country? We are not talking about a "project" here, and quite honestly the free market will do most of the work as power from other sources continues to drop.
We can't even supply clean drinking water to everyone who needs it and it literally falls out of the sky. Is there more information on this free market solution, because I'm interested. I love what they have done with computer software and apps for my phone.
Hate to say it, but these are the same tired arguments that the coal fired steam train lobby trotted out when everyone started to want internal combustion engine cars…
1895 - 300 cars - 190 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
1918 - 2 000 000 cars - 678 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
The figures suggest the need for coal only increased as internal combustion engine cars were being sold to the market increasingly. Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
1895 - 300 cars - 190 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
1918 - 2 000 000 cars - 678 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
The figures suggest the need for coal only increased as internal combustion engine cars were being sold to the market increasingly. Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
The whole point of examining history is so as to not repeat mistakes.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
1895 - 300 cars - 190 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
1918 - 2 000 000 cars - 678 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
The figures suggest the need for coal only increased as internal combustion engine cars were being sold to the market increasingly. Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
newer and different technologies
You know you went to far when even Tungsten thinks your a Jack Ass.
The whole point of examining history is so as to not repeat mistakes.
Yet Canadians voted a second Trudeau - history repeats itself again.
In all seriousness, if there is any in NBR, oil isn't going anywhere. The human race is tied to it in everything we do.
The whole point of examining history is so as to not repeat mistakes.
I agree, but we are ascending the proverbial mountain when it comes to energy demands and it takes more gas to drive up a hill than down it.
1895 - 300 cars - 190 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
1918 - 2 000 000 cars - 678 000 000 short tons of coal produced.
The figures suggest the need for coal only increased as internal combustion engine cars were being sold to the market increasingly. Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
Perhaps the coal barons were blind to the fact that wide spread use of electricity requiring centralized power plants and an upcoming world war would change their fortunes. In order for history to repeat itself a new use for a massive amount of oil (that we couldn't provide) would have to emerge as it did for coal in the early 20th century. If you have any ideas of what those could be please let us know.
Forum jump:
