# Environmental Misinformation



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I am all for doing what we can to improve the environment and influence climate change. But what really gets me, is when climate activists post misleading information.

In the UK, there is a proposed project to capture carbon (CO2) from one of their largest power stations and pipe it down below the North Sea

quoting from article:


> Should it be built—and it’s a massive, very expensive if—Shell’s carbon-capture units would be affixed to the two of the four stacks of the Drax Power Station in North Yorkshire, which supplies 12 per cent of the U.K.’s power.
> These units would collectively filter out and separate roughly eight million tons of carbon per year. The offending gas would then be piped about 160 kilometres and pumped 3,000 metres beneath the bed of the North Sea, where it would remain, effectively, forever.


Sounds like a worthwhile project, perhaps? But then the article includes this picture. These are NOT the stacks! These are cooling towers and the stuff you see above them, is water vapour. Just as innocuous as the cloud in the distant sky!


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Can't we just capture the CO2, freeze it, and use it to ship vaccines?


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

agent99 said:


> I am all for doing what we can to improve the environment and influence climate change. But what really gets me, is when climate activists post misleading information.


The article was posted by journalists, not climate activists. The choice of photo is unfortunate— it does show Drax, but, you are right, it doesn’t show smoke stacks.

This isn’t intentional misinformation. It’s journalists without science degrees trying to convey science-based information. Sometimes they don’t get things quite right.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

fireseeker said:


> This isn’t intentional misinformation. It’s journalists without science degrees trying to convey science-based information. Sometimes they don’t get things quite right.


Ignorance isn't an excuse, journalists should seek out proper information ... wait, isn't that "supposed to be" part of their job? No wonder more and more people have no trust for the media. They're more interested in getting readers than actually telling the truth.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

agent99 said:


> In the UK, there is a proposed project to capture carbon (CO2) from one of their largest power stations and pipe it down below the North Sea


lol, sweep the CO2 under the rug so to speak.

Headline in 10 years ... Small earthquake releases massive amounts of CO2 from North Sea.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> lol, sweep the CO2 under the rug so to speak.
> 
> Headline in 10 years ... Small earthquake releases massive amounts of CO2 from North Sea.


Climate activists have basically pushed the whole "environment" to be atmospheric CO2, with almost no nuance.
Massive pollution from (mining for) batteries... at least it's not atmospheric CO2.

It's such a simplistic view on "the environment" it's bound to be wrong.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I wonder which picture of our oil sand industry media exclusively uses?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

cainvest said:


> lol, sweep the CO2 under the rug so to speak.


In an attempt to keep coal fired stations running, a carbon capture process was developed and built in Saskatchewan. I believe the C02 eventually gets sequestered deep underground after in some cases being used to increase output of existing oil fields. They say it is not released to environment and stays "under the rug" . I presume the UK project would use the C02 in a similar way.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> I wonder which picture of our oil sand industry media exclusively uses?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Context free photos are just propaganda.
Put some context, I assume these are showing different things.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

They are both heavy oil production sites in Northern Alberta. I didn't think I needed comment but media always portrays the 1st photo when the 2nd photo portrays modern oil sands extraction.
I imagine showing caribou grazing on the 2nd site (I can't find that pic right now) would make a lot of activist heads explode.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Eder said:


> I didn't think I needed comment .........


You didn't - your point was obvious.

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eder said:


> They are both heavy oil production sites in Northern Alberta. I didn't think I needed comment but media always portrays the 1st photo when the 2nd photo portrays modern oil sands extraction.


Ya, was obvious to me as well.
A quick checks shows about 80% were related to pic #2.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Eder said:


> I imagine showing caribou grazing on the 2nd site (I can't find that pic right now) would make a lot of activist heads explode.


Of course, and the media along with the environmentalists love to show negative photos of the oil sands extraction. I always know when to discount an article or picture of the oil sands when they use the term "tar sands". That's an immediate flag to exit whatever you're reading.

In fact, according to the federal government on Oil Sands: Land Use and Reclamation: _"Oil sands development is subject to environmental standards that are among the most stringent in the world. The Government of Alberta requires that companies remediate and reclaim 100 percent of the land after the oil sands have been extracted. Reclamation means that land is returned to a self-sustaining ecosystem with local vegetation and wildlife."_

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think it is a better plan is to stop creating the problem than trying to hide it


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> I think it is a better plan is to stop creating the problem than trying to hide it


There's no hiding. They remove the resource that helps Canada's economy, and then return the land better than it was before they started.

How is this bad in sags land?

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If putting loads of topsoil and grass seeds on toxic land meets the requirement for "reclaiming" ancient boreal forests and waterways, we are not asking for much and are only kidding ourselves. I grant that it does look nicer in pictures though, except they should have photoshopped out the toxic tailing ponds in the background. Do they still shoot cannons to dissuade the waterfowl from landing in them ? I heard one sip of water and they dropped over dead.

Animals have returned to the restricted Chernoby nuclear accident zone, and some of them look normal. That doesn't mean I would want to move there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At least make the economic arguments. The environmental ones are laughable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadian taxpayers just gave Alberta $1.7 billion to clean up the wells abandoned by the oil industry. Good stewards of the land........too funny.

I support good paying union jobs for Albertans to clean up the mess, but I would prefer the oil companies paid for it.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Canadian taxpayers just gave Alberta $1.7 billion to clean up the wells abandoned by the oil industry. Good stewards of the land........too funny.


You're right, it's quite refreshing to see that the government has gotten together with the oil industry to clean up situations from the past that were less than what we want to see today to return the land to better than it was. I applaud the government in this regard.

ltr


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Canadian taxpayers just gave Alberta $1.7 billion to clean up the wells abandoned by the oil industry. Good stewards of the land........too funny.
> 
> I support good paying union jobs for Albertans to clean up the mess, but I would prefer the oil companies paid for it.


It's not just Alberta or oil. There are thousands of abandoned mines dotted across Canada. Not that long ago, I became aware that our gov was starting to find and document these sites. Those who abandoned them are likely long gone. They need to be cleaned up to various degrees and environmentally restored. Not that easy. Many lakes were contaminated . Hard to believe that water in many of our pristine looking lakes is not fit for drinking.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> They are both heavy oil production sites in Northern Alberta. I didn't think I needed comment but media always portrays the 1st photo when the 2nd photo portrays modern oil sands extraction.
> I imagine showing caribou grazing on the 2nd site (I can't find that pic right now) would make a lot of activist heads explode.


Sure, but they're clearly different sites, likely using different technologies.
They might also be different types of extraction, different time periods etc.

As far as the media... follow the money.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280PPM to 380PPM in the last 100 years. That 100PPM has supposedly increased the temperature of the whole world by 1 degree. 100PPM or parts per million, is the same as .001%. That means CO2 is the most powerful insulation in the universe. If .001% will raise the temp 1 degree what would 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? We could take all the discarded CO2 from power plants and put it into bubble wrap and use it to insulate our houses. This would sequester the CO2 and make our houses so well insulated we could heat them all winter on 1 gallon of oil. It makes at least as much sense as any other proposal, most of which don't even pretend to cure the problem.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> As far as the media... follow the money.


Indeed, lots of money. Generally it's extremely wealthy conservatives funding nonsensical climate change denial.

Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement



> “The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires,” says the _Guardian_, “often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change.”
> . . .
> So it’s kind of a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.


Don't be a sucker... don't fall for it. Think for yourself and don't become a puppet of rich elites.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Indeed, lots of money. Generally it's extremely wealthy conservatives funding nonsensical climate change denial.
> 
> Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement
> 
> ...


Trudeau is literally bribing the mainstream media with tax dollars, while suing independent media that's trying to hold him accountable.

I do think for myself.
My question is why you don't you think the toxic waste from "Green Energy" is a problem?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

If you dig a bit deeper, you will find explanations of why changes in the amount of greenhouse gases in atmosphere cause changes in the temperature of the environment we live in. It is a bit complex.

However, CO2 *can* be used to keep our homes warm (or cool). But not as insulation! Most heat pumps use greenhouse gases as refrigerants. We have one ourselves. CO2 can and has been used as the refrigerant. CO2 Heat Pumps: A Key Piece in a Decarbonized Future


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Climate activists have basically pushed the whole "environment" to be atmospheric CO2, with almost no nuance.
> Massive pollution from (mining for) batteries... at least it's not atmospheric CO2.
> 
> It's such a simplistic view on "the environment" it's bound to be wrong.


And the EV haters like to concern troll about mining for battery raw materials, but fail to consider the mining required to support the fossil fuel alternative. Example is concern trolling about cobalt used in batteries. Never mind that a lot of cobalt is used in refining gasoline.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> I always know when to discount an article or picture of the oil sands when they use the term "tar sands". That's an immediate flag to exit whatever you're reading.


Wasn't it originally called tar sands, and oil sands was a bit of rebranding to euphemize the resource? Ie, oil sands is the newspeak.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> And the EV haters like to concern troll about mining for battery raw materials, but fail to consider the mining required to support the fossil fuel alternative. Example is concern trolling about cobalt used in batteries. Never mind that a lot of cobalt is used in refining gasoline.


Sure, but that's the problem, everyone is attaching labels and slurs and failing to actually discuss the issues fairly.

For example, your post suggests you think I'm an EV hater.
I want an EV, I think my next car will be an EV. 
The technology just isn't there for my use case yet. When the vehicles are good enough, I'll switch.

Just because I think there are serious environmental concerns with Green Energy and EV's doesn't mean I don't think they're the way forward. That's actually the problem, there are trade off with both, but people don't want to discuss them rationally.
I see a few reasons.
1. The religion of Climate change must not be questioned.
2. They neither don't understand that there are trade offs or don't want to acknowledge them.

Instead they'll label anyone who raises concerns about them as "haters".

I'm simultaneously very bullish on EVs, and very skeptical of many claims.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280PPM to 380PPM in the last 100 years. That 100PPM has supposedly increased the temperature of the whole world by 1 degree. 100PPM or parts per million, is the same as .001%. That means CO2 is the most powerful insulation in the universe. If .001% will raise the temp 1 degree what would 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? We could take all the discarded CO2 from power plants and put it into bubble wrap and use it to insulate our houses. This would sequester the CO2 and make our houses so well insulated we could heat them all winter on 1 gallon of oil. It makes at least as much sense as any other proposal, most of which don't even pretend to cure the problem.


You're arguing with basic high school science (CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Most denialists don't even do this--take your denialism elsewhere.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Sure, but that's the problem, everyone is attaching labels and slurs and failing to actually discuss the issues fairly.
> 
> For example, your post suggests you think I'm an EV hater.
> I want an EV, I think my next car will be an EV.
> ...


Life cycle analysis of EVs show that they are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. The higher initial energy investment is recouped early in a typical vehicle's lifetime. Only a granny car that spends all its time in the garage would be more ecologically friendly as an ICE vehicle.

The reason why people are unwilling to engage in nuance is that it plays into the hands of the merchants of doubt trying to delay any action on fossil fuel reduction. It was the same whataboutism used by the tobacco industry to delay regulation.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

andrewf said:


> And the EV haters like to concern troll about mining for battery raw materials, but fail to consider the mining required to support the fossil fuel alternative. Example is concern trolling about cobalt used in batteries. Never mind that a lot of cobalt is used in refining gasoline.


I know you guys (not just you andrewf) love to throw pebbles at each other's glass houses but can't you at least research your positions a little for context in the discussion.

Each Tesla Model 3 = 10+lbs of cobalt (unknown amount recovered, if they even get recycled)
6.6 million gallons of gas = 1lb of cobalt (avg car miles = 200 million miles) 

Now if they can (and will) recover almost all the colbalt in EV batteries that would be really good. Right now is the time to mandate that ALL EV makers be required to show recycling numbers and take responsibility that they do get properly recycled.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> You're arguing with basic high school science (CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Most denialists don't even do this--take your denialism elsewhere.


I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing. If CO2 really is as powerful a greenhouse gas as they say, we should use it to our benefit by insulating our houses with it. What is unscientific about that?
Besides, the Global Warming, excuse me, Climate Change panic is over. We gave Justin Trudeau billions of dollars in extra taxes to solve the problem, remember?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Tar is an incorrect description of oil sands. They are significantly different compounds and hence the name was changed to correctly describe the compound. Just like gasoline is not diesel is not butane. Course that would not fit the agenda of some...which then undermines their credibility on that subject matter.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As I recall, everyone referred to the Alberta Tar Sands years ago. That was an objectionable moniker to some and it drifted into "oil sands" description.

I do agree that the use of "tar sands" today is revived primarily to cast the oil industry in a bad light. I am not personally concerned with labels though.

It is a dirty fuel source to produce and to burn...but is what we have to sell, so we should use it to earn the money to fund a better future with alternative energy.

Nothing is going to dramatically change overnight, but technology in green energy has progressed in leaps and bounds.

Improvements in solar panels and wind turbines have led to greater efficiencies and fewer problems. Nothing will stop the steady progression of technology.

We don't have to race to safe harbour. All we have to do is turn the ship around and start going in the right direction.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Life cycle analysis of EVs show that they are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. The higher initial energy investment is recouped early in a typical vehicle's lifetime. Only a granny car that spends all its time in the garage would be more ecologically friendly as an ICE vehicle.
> 
> The reason why people are unwilling to engage in nuance is that it plays into the hands of the merchants of doubt trying to delay any action on fossil fuel reduction. It was the same whataboutism used by the tobacco industry to delay regulation.


Care to share that life cycle analysis?

I believe it might be getting closer, but most I've seen.
1. Compare different vehicles.
2. Negate or ignore non CO2 impact. Ie toxic runoff.
3. I don't know any that use the marginal CO2 production to charge, and instead assume low CO2 electricity sources, rather than the sources that will actually be used.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

agent99 said:


> I am all for doing what we can to improve the environment and influence climate change. But what really gets me, is when climate activists post misleading information.


Do you get as equally irate with the much more numerous, misleading, and truth distorting postings from the Petrochemical industry?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

BC Eddie said:


> Do you get as equally irate with the much more numerous, misleading, and truth distorting postings from the Petrochemical industry?


It's hard to argue which is "more numerous", however when one is pushing bad policy that hurts people, that's the one that upsets me.
Unfortunately no price is too high for the CO2 warriors.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> It's hard to argue which is "more numerous", however when one is pushing bad policy that hurts people, that's the one that upsets me.


Exactly, the problem is bad policy AND the money that gets in the way of bringing policy that it's the best interest of citizens.

Allowing dangerous industrial activity that is harmful to the public, without strict regulations that curb it, is a prime example of bad policy that hurts people.

Most jurisdictions in the world have actually figured out how dangerous heavy carbon emissions are. There seem to be two outliers ... the USA, and Alberta (and it looks sad).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Exactly, the problem is bad policy AND the money that gets in the way of bringing policy that it's the best interest of citizens.
> 
> Allowing dangerous industrial activity that is harmful to the public, without strict regulations that curb it, is a prime example of bad policy that hurts people.
> 
> Most jurisdictions in the world have actually figured out how dangerous heavy carbon emissions are. There seem to be two outliers ... the USA, and Alberta (and it looks sad).


I agree with you.
Except you're wrong on policy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Care to share that life cycle analysis?
> 
> I believe it might be getting closer, but most I've seen.
> 1. Compare different vehicles.
> ...


Here are several:



https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2018-63%20Lifecycle%20Analysis%20of%20Electric%20Vehicles_Kukreja.pdf





https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE%20-%20draft%20report%20v04.pdf





https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Why not use a test that does not have a predetermined outcome? Car & Driver seem pretty non biased...heres their results of actual ownership.

*Three-Year Ownership Cost Comparison*
After three years the grand totals give some insight into the question, "are EVs cheaper?" Based on purchase price, fuel, maintenance costs, and depreciation over a three-year period here's what we've found for the cost-of-ownership of our subject vehicles:

*Mini Hardtop*: $41,454

*Mini Electric*: $49,312

*Hyundai Kona*: $39,817

*Hyundai Kona Electric*: $55,311


Getting close but maybe once EV adoption rate rises...

Among G7 countries, *Canada* is tied with Germany for the highest *EV adoption rate*, at 3.0 per cent of total vehicles on the road. The global average is 2.5 per cent. British Columbia leads the country at about 5.0 per cent


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eder said:


> Among G7 countries, *Canada* is tied with Germany for the highest *EV adoption rate*, at 3.0 per cent of total vehicles on the road. The global average is 2.5 per cent. British Columbia leads the country at about 5.0 per cent


Ummmm isn't all the EU in the G7? That would mean Sweden is leading with over 12%.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Ummmm isn't all the EU in the G7? That would mean Sweden is leading with over 12%.


G7 only includes specific countries, so Germany, UK, France, and somehow Italy. But if we're talking about Europe, I would think that Norway wins at 49.1%: Top 18 Electric Car Countries (with Chart) | AvtoWow.com.

Of course, Norway uses disincentives for ICE cars which makes a difference.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Ummmm isn't all the EU in the G7? That would mean Sweden is leading with over 12%.


No
The *Group of Seven* (*G7*) is an international intergovernmental economic organization consisting of seven major developed countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Why not use a test that does not have a predetermined outcome? Car & Driver seem pretty non biased...heres their results of actual ownership.
> 
> *Three-Year Ownership Cost Comparison*
> After three years the grand totals give some insight into the question, "are EVs cheaper?" Based on purchase price, fuel, maintenance costs, and depreciation over a three-year period here's what we've found for the cost-of-ownership of our subject vehicles:
> ...


This is total cost of ownership, not energy life cycle analysis. 3 years seems like a short time frame for such an analysis, isn't 5 years more typical?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Here are several:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, they are great examples of the flaws I identified.
Thank you.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Please give detailed reasons why each is flawed. Otherwise, you're just trolling and were not asking sincerely in the first place.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280PPM to 380PPM in the last 100 years. That 100PPM has supposedly increased the temperature of the whole world by 1 degree. 100PPM or parts per million, is the same as .001%. That means CO2 is the most powerful insulation in the universe. If .001% will raise the temp 1 degree what would 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? We could take all the discarded CO2 from power plants and put it into bubble wrap and use it to insulate our houses. This would sequester the CO2 and make our houses so well insulated we could heat them all winter on 1 gallon of oil. It makes at least as much sense as any other proposal, most of which don't even pretend to cure the problem.


CO2 is very effective at blocking infrared radiation, but that only accounts for about 10% of the heat lost by a typical house. The rest of the heat loss is caused by convection and conduction, which CO2 has no effect on. So even if you could block 100% of the infrared radiation, you would only gain a 10% benefit.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Imagine producing oil that was carbon negative. Or creating petroleum products from CO2 sucked directly from the air. Or replacing coal and natural gas with carbon free nuclear power. Unfortunately, it's not really about the oil or the environment. It's more about control and the message.

CO2 emissions can be solved today with cost effective and realistic solutions. It doesn't get solved because it becomes about power and not about solving the problem. 

If it's not wind and solar, then you're a climate denier that is destroying the planet and ruining children's childhoods.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> No
> The *Group of Seven* (*G7*) is an international intergovernmental economic organization consisting of seven major developed countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States


What ... the canada gov link is wrong? lol 

Canada and the G7

From above link ...
_The G7 is an informal grouping of seven of the world’s advanced economies consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. _


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> What ... the canada gov link is wrong? lol
> 
> Canada and the G7
> 
> ...


That's interesting. It looks like the EU has representation, but never really thought of it being part of the G7.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

doctrine said:


> If it's not wind and solar, then you're a climate denier that is destroying the planet and ruining children's childhoods.


Wonder what activists will find to complain about this?









Groundbreaking $5.2M hydrogen blending project aims to green Ontario’s natural gas grid


Initiative launched by Enbridge Gas and Cummins is the first of its kind in North America



www.enbridge.com





Could be a game changer if H % is upped beyond 2%


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> CO2 is very effective at blocking infrared radiation, but that only accounts for about 10% of the heat lost by a typical house. The rest of the heat loss is caused by convection and conduction, which CO2 has no effect on. So even if you could block 100% of the infrared radiation, you would only gain a 10% benefit.


You missed his point: he wasn't sincerely asking a question.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Wonder what activists will find to complain about this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm curious whether this is cost effective or just greenwashing, like the ethanol content in gasoline.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I'm curious whether this is cost effective or just greenwashing, like the ethanol content in gasoline.


I thought it was interesting; however, there is some greenwashing.

They talk about renewable hydrogen gas which is kind of a nonsensical term, as hydrogen is being used for energy storage. There aren't many details other than the fact that it is using the Markham power 2 gas facility. The hydrogen gas is being produced by electrolysis, using grid energy. The intention would be to use the hydrogen gas for hydrogen powered vehicles, but since they have no market yet, I guess they'll just burn it. The other normal use would be to use the generated gas to deal with peak demands (i.e. burn the stored hydrogen to get back the electrical). The obvious problem is entropy as you're going to lose some energy each time you do the conversion, e.g. 100 kW electrical turns into 80 kW stored hydrogen which converts back to 70 kW electrical when burned... all numbers just illustrative to make a point.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The point I'm guessing is to replace 2% by volume of nat gas with emission free burning hydrogen saving some CO2. Using unused green power to produce it seems reasonable as there is no storage for this power anyway.

From the article
The facility, commissioned in 2018, uses excess renewable electricity from the Ontario grid to make hydrogen from water and store it.

And I believe Ontario is chock full of unused renewables.

I am curious if hydrogen will have comparable BTU output though. I know when we were in Polynesia no propane was available so we burned butane which sucks in comparison.

Another interesting thing ENB is doing is renewable natural gas....









Enbridge and partners break ground on Ontario’s largest RNG plant


$42-million project in Niagara Falls will lower emissions, stimulate regional economic development



www.enbridge.com





With regulatory support, some utilities across Canada have set ambitious RNG goals, targeting a 5% blend of RNG in all-natural gas streams by 2025 and 10% by 2030. This would result in a 14-megatonne reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, or the equivalency of taking 3.1 million cars off the road.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eder said:


> The point I'm guessing is to replace 2% by volume of nat gas with emission free burning hydrogen saving some CO2. Using unused green power to produce it seems reasonable as there is no storage for this power anyway.


The danger that @andrewf is talking about is that when we started putting ethanol blends into gasoline, it reduced the overall energy available in a liter of blended gas vs pure gas. So, if you had to travel 100 km, you may need 8 L of blended gas vs 7.3 L of pure gas (for example).
At 1 atm, and 25C, the energy density of hydrogen is 0.01005-0.01188 MJ/L vs natural gas at 0.0364 MJ/L. So a 2% hydrogen gas mixture would reduce the amount of energy available. The question then becomes: are you really burning the same amount of natural gas for heating if you have to burn more mixture to make up for the dilution?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

nathan79 said:


> CO2 is very effective at blocking infrared radiation, but that only accounts for about 10% of the heat lost by a typical house. The rest of the heat loss is caused by convection and conduction, which CO2 has no effect on. So even if you could block 100% of the infrared radiation, you would only gain a 10% benefit.


That cannot be correct. According to the experts sunlight passes easily through the CO2, then it hits the earth and turns to heat, which is blocked by the CO2. If CO2 blocked infrared radiation but did not block heat, it would reflect sunlight back into space and let the heat from the earth radiate away, and there would be no greenhouse effect.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> That cannot be correct. According to the experts sunlight passes easily through the CO2, then it hits the earth and turns to heat, which is blocked by the CO2. If CO2 blocked infrared radiation but did not block heat, it would reflect sunlight back into space and let the heat from the earth radiate away, and there would be no greenhouse effect.


Solar radiation has a shorter wavelength allowing it to easily bypass the CO2 molecule... infrared radiation has a longer wavelength, so more of it is blocked by the CO2 depending on the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Saskatchewan sets 13 new cold-weather records as deep freeze continues.

This is fantastic. The carbon tax is obviously working. 

The tax is only $30 a tonne today, but just wait until it hits $170 per tonne in 2030 when the economy is in ruins, it will be absolute zero in Saskatchewan.

ltr


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I wouldn't want to plug in my Tesla this weekend lol
These are prices/ mega watt. Normal price in Texas is about $50/mw.
Plug in the windmills!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Climate warming is a scam!!!!! and another reason for the most corrupted PM ever to rise taxes


----------

