Just curious, but which part is he nuts about? The affect of radiation on cancer rates?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No to Keystone, Yes to the Planet
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Just curious, but which part is he nuts about? The affect of radiation on cancer rates?
how can a professed environmentalist prefer nuclear fission technology.
its like being against hand grenades because they can kill people but being in favor of suitcase nukes.
As an conservative / old school preserve the environment environmentalist and someone who majored in Econ... I am against nuclear technology until someone can show me the costs and the risks out way the alternative. I know they are working on safer nukes but they still have waste. When the technology is ready... then maybe we should look at it. Right now we can't risk more fukishima's more than we are already risking.
its like being against hand grenades because they can kill people but being in favor of suitcase nukes.
As an conservative / old school preserve the environment environmentalist and someone who majored in Econ... I am against nuclear technology until someone can show me the costs and the risks out way the alternative. I know they are working on safer nukes but they still have waste. When the technology is ready... then maybe we should look at it. Right now we can't risk more fukishima's more than we are already risking.
Speaking of death footprint from energy production...
Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. Biomass is supposedly carbon neutral as it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere before it liberates it again later, although production losses are significant depending upon the biomass. Carbon emissions and physical footprints are known as externalities and are those vague someone-has-to-pay-eventually kind of thing it’s hard to put a value on. Proposed carbon footprint taxes are in the range of $15 to $40/ton of CO2 emitted, but assigning a physical footprint cost depends on the region, ecosystem sensitivities and importance. A hundred-acre wetlands to be flooded by a new dam is worth more to the planet than a barren hundred-acre strip under a solar array in the Mojave (P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, 2005).
But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. Biomass is supposedly carbon neutral as it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere before it liberates it again later, although production losses are significant depending upon the biomass. Carbon emissions and physical footprints are known as externalities and are those vague someone-has-to-pay-eventually kind of thing it’s hard to put a value on. Proposed carbon footprint taxes are in the range of $15 to $40/ton of CO2 emitted, but assigning a physical footprint cost depends on the region, ecosystem sensitivities and importance. A hundred-acre wetlands to be flooded by a new dam is worth more to the planet than a barren hundred-acre strip under a solar array in the Mojave (P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, 2005).
But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
But the above is dated. For all the recent ones. From 21015 alone...
2015[edit]
- On January 14, during work to free a trapped inline inspection unit, a leak was discovered on the Evangeline Pipeline, near Cameron Parish, Louisiana. This pipeline had been given a Corrective Action Order in October 2014, due to a number of leaks.[490][491][492]
- Also on January 14, a gas pipeline exploded and burned, near the Ross Barnett Reservoir in Brandon, Mississippi, creating a sizable crater in the ground and burning 6 acres of vegetation, before the fire was extinguished. No injuries were reported. The failure was due to a "hard spot" from manufacturing, that already had a repair sleeve on it. There are 788 sleeves on the Index 129 pipeline from Edna, Texas, to Sterlington, Louisiana; and, 726 sleeves on the Index 130 pipeline from Marchand Junction, Louisiana to Kosciusko, Mississippi. Both were built from pipe made in 1952.[493][494][495]
- On January 19, oil from a broken pipeline seeped into the Yellowstone River, and contaminated the water supply 10 miles south of Glendive, Montana. The release was from Bridger Pipeline LLC's 12-inch Poplar line, which can carry 42,000 barrels a day of crude from the Bakken formation and runs from Canada south to Baker, Montana. Bridger Pipeline is a subsidiary of True Cos., a privately held Wyoming-based company. The company said in a statement that the pipeline was shut down within an hour of the leak.[496][497]
- On January 21, a crude oil pipeline pump station caught fire northwest of Texas City, Texas. Texas City fire officials said that company officials reported that there had been issues with the pump station over the weekend.[498]
- On January 26, a 20-inch ATEX pipeline carrying ethane exploded and burned in Brooke County, West Virginia. Despite snow in the area, five acres of woodlands burned, and 24,000 gallons of ethane were consumed. Initial reports suspect a girth weld failure, with the pipeline being less than two years old. There were no injuries.[499]
- On February 17, a suspected electrical arc made a hole in a Marathon Petroleum pipeline in Shively, Kentucky, spill about 6,700 gallons of jet fuel. More than 2,500 tons of soil were removed to clean up the area.[500][501]
- On February 25, a 26-inch crude oil pipeline in Navarro County near the Town of Dawson, Texas, failed, spill about 50 barrels of crude oil. Near the failure, investigation showed that the pipe had lost about 80% of its thickness, due to external corrosion. This anomaly was not seen in a 2011 test of this pipeline.[502]
- A pipeline Patrol pilot identified an oil sheen on a pond near Tehuacana Creek, Texas which was then linked to a leaking 10 inch petroleum products pipeline on March 13. About 50 barrels of diesel fuel were spilled.[503]
- On April 9, 2 Williams Companies pipelines broke within hours of each other in Marshall County, West Virginia. A 4-inch condensate pipeline broke at 8 pm local time, spilling about 132 barrels of condensate into a creek. Around 10:50 pm local time, a 12-inch gas pipeline ruptured. There was no fire or injuries. Heavy rains were said to be the cause of the failures.[504][505]
- On April 13, a Kinder Morgan gas pipeline exploded and burned near Borger, Texas. One home was evacuated, but, there were no injuries or serious damage.[506]
- On April 17, a 12-inch natural gas pipeline near Fresno, California operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Corp was ruptured by a backhoe. The resulting explosion killed 1 person and injured 12 others.[507]
- On May 19, a Plains All American Pipeline oil pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach, spilling about 105,000 gallons of crude oil. It is referred to as the Refugio Oil Spill [508][509]
- On May 31, a 24-inch natural gas back-up pipeline that runs under the Arkansas River in Little Rock, Arkansas ruptured releasing 3.9 million cubic feet of natural gas. The pipeline was not currently in use. No one was injured. A tugboat was damaged.[510][511]
- On June 10, a 24-inch natural gas pipeline ruptured in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. About 130 individuals were evacuated from their homes. No injuries or damage reported.[512]
- On June 13, a 42-inch gas gathering pipeline exploded and burned near Cuero, Texas. 7 homes were evacuated for a time, but there were no injuries.[513]
- On June 22, a truck driver was killed when his rig veered off a highway, & broke above ground facilities for a propylene pipeline in Houston, Texas. The highway had to be closed for several hours, until the gas dissipated.[514]
- Four workers were hurt on June 25, when a 4-inch gas pipeline exploded at a gas pipeline facility, near White Deer, Texas. 2 of the workers were critically injured. The cause of the explosion was not immediately known.[515]
- On July 10, a fitting on a 20-inch Plains All American Pipeline crude oil pipeline broke, spilling 4200 gallons of crude oil near Grantfork, Illinois. Much of the crude reached a nearby creek. There were no injuries.[516]
- On July 15, two workers were hurt by an explosion, when a bulldozer hit a 4-inch gas pipeline, at an EQT gas compressor station in Worthington, Pennsylvania.[517]
- On August 3, two individuals were injured in Falfurrias, Texas when a natural gas pipeline operated by Kinder Morgan ruptured. Later investigation showed that the pipe split along an ERW seam.[518][519]
- On August 7, a natural gas liquids pipeline in Weld County, Colorado burned, after being struck by a third party.[520]
- On August 13, a natural gas pipeline in Cypress, Texas ruptured and leaked while a contract crew worked in the area. The pipeline was owned by Gulfsouth Pipeline. There were no injuries or immediate damage; residents were evacuated.[521]
- On August 26, two maintenance divers were injured while working on a pipeline owned by Boardwalk/Gulf South Pipeline Co. 25 miles offshore of Louisiana when the pipeline ruptured, and the gas ignited.[522]
- A Colonial Pipeline 32 inch main line was discovered to be leaking on September 21, in Centreville, Virginia. At least 7,000 gallons of gasoline were spilled, forcing several nearby businesses to close.[523][524]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
Why don't you list the number of oil rail road accidents. The number is 10 times greater and the death toll is 70 times greater.
USA Today: Environmentalists will find that it's a Pyrrhic victory for them
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...racking-obama-climate-change-column/75422888/
"Blocking Keystone hasn’t prevented Canadian oil from coming into the USA. Back in 2008, when the pipeline was proposed, the U.S. was importing 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from Canada. By August of this year, it was 3.9 million barrels per day. In other words, since 2008, just the increase in Canadian oil coming to the USA amounts to more than 1.5 times the capacity of Keystone XL, which was designed to carry 830,000 barrels a day."
(More at above url)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...racking-obama-climate-change-column/75422888/
"Blocking Keystone hasn’t prevented Canadian oil from coming into the USA. Back in 2008, when the pipeline was proposed, the U.S. was importing 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from Canada. By August of this year, it was 3.9 million barrels per day. In other words, since 2008, just the increase in Canadian oil coming to the USA amounts to more than 1.5 times the capacity of Keystone XL, which was designed to carry 830,000 barrels a day."
(More at above url)
Last edited:
you can't rank nuclear on that list... until you dispose of its waste properly and make it safe.
for instance leaving it in pools near the reactors is crazy.
we still don't know the costs in lives from fukishima alone...
http://enenews.com/japan-times-dead...-nuclear-fuel-impossible-plan-decommissioning
Published: October 30th, 2015 at 5:21 pm ET
Japan Times: “Deadly” radiation levels detected outside Fukushima containment vessel — “Details behind situation are unknown” — Officials unable to grasp location of melted nuclear fuel — “Impossible” to plan for decommissioning
for instance leaving it in pools near the reactors is crazy.
we still don't know the costs in lives from fukishima alone...
http://enenews.com/japan-times-dead...-nuclear-fuel-impossible-plan-decommissioning
Published: October 30th, 2015 at 5:21 pm ET
Japan Times: “Deadly” radiation levels detected outside Fukushima containment vessel — “Details behind situation are unknown” — Officials unable to grasp location of melted nuclear fuel — “Impossible” to plan for decommissioning
Speaking of death footprint from energy production...
Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. Biomass is supposedly carbon neutral as it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere before it liberates it again later, although production losses are significant depending upon the biomass. Carbon emissions and physical footprints are known as externalities and are those vague someone-has-to-pay-eventually kind of thing it’s hard to put a value on. Proposed carbon footprint taxes are in the range of $15 to $40/ton of CO2 emitted, but assigning a physical footprint cost depends on the region, ecosystem sensitivities and importance. A hundred-acre wetlands to be flooded by a new dam is worth more to the planet than a barren hundred-acre strip under a solar array in the Mojave (P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, 2005).
But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
No, that will not increase tar sands extraction. Even holding the price of oil constant the landed price has not fallen.The reality is that stopping Keystone will not reduce tar sand / shale extraction at all. In fact it will increase the extraction
No, that will not increase tar sands extraction. Even holding the price of oil constant the landed price has not fallen.
Despite the dropping price of oil the tar sand / shale extraction has increased over the past two years.
As I noted above the Keystone XL pipeline would have carried 830,000 barrels per day. The current total daily shipments to the U.S. is 3.9 million barrels per day.
Eliminating the pipeline means that all the producers must ship by rail (which is costly) this evens the playing field for all producers -- meaning that many more oil companies are jumping in -- including Marathon to increase production in Canada.
Do you even read your own Canadian papers on this subject?
You're combining different sources and technologies here. The tar sands are at a near standstill, and that's not because of Keystone.Despite the dropping price of oil the tar sand / shale extraction
You're combining different sources and technologies here. The tar sands are at a near standstill, and that's not because of Keystone.
These are the two primary technologies in Alberta oil production. No matter if shale or tar sand extraction is used --- the end result is the same. The elimination of the Keystone XL pipeline will be causing an INCREASE in production and more oil companies are coming to Canada.