Comments on: US Congress says no to tar sands (quietly)

By: Bob Brown

Bob Brown — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:02:36 +0000

Jimmy Carter called for energy indepence. Since that time Democrats have voted no to everything neccesaary to achieve it and continue to do so today garanteeing you will soon be paying $10 a gallon for gas. No to drilling in ANWR. Democrats argue it would take 10 year to bring it on line. Never mind that it would take closer to 3 year, but more interestingly is that the Democrats used the ten year arguement 15 years ago when they first voted NO. DUh! NO, to tar sands. No to liquid coal. No, no, no, no. Well enjoy your $10 gas and quite your whining if you love your Democrat Senators.

What? You say alternative energy? Does anyone think they will be driving a hydgron powered car next year? In three years? In ten years? There day will possibly come but today we need oi.

As for wind and solar. Sure if you want to pay five times as much as you do now for electric power.

Wake up people, or just shut your mouth and just fork over your money.

By: Nancy LaPlaca

Nancy LaPlaca — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:14:41 +0000

Get a grip. CTL is about the stupidest suggestion ever. The information is vast: it emits twice as much GHGs as regular gasoline, and it takes 5 gallons of water to make a gallon of liquid coal.

Hitler was the first to try this, and the U.S. has poured cash down the drain on CTL-type projects since WWII. About 3 million tons of CO2 is being sequestered in teh world right now — a pittance — 3 million tons is about HALF of the CO2 ONE average coal plant emits.

Renewable energy is cost-compeititive. Xcel Energy’s recently submitted Colorado Resource Plan estimated these capital costs:
- wind-$1645/kW (with Production Tax Credit);
- wind-$2,000/kW (no PTC);
- concentrating solar with 6 hrs thermal storage-$2572;
- IGCC with 50% capture-$3912/kW;
- pulverized coal, dry cooled with 50% capture-$3688/kW.
Energy efficiency is 1-3 cents/kWh! http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_41994_45385-42116-2_68_135-0,00.html -(go to Vol. 1, p.1-55)

By: Dale Wolver

Dale Wolver — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:13:15 +0000

Way to go you guys. Rest assured many people in Canada do NOT want development of the tar-sands. It is the largest man-made environmental disaster on the Planet. They are raping the boreal forest which also happens to be the largest carbon sink on the planet, however by strip-mining this vast region the forest is becoming a CO2 source instead. Keep up the pressure on your government to do the right thing and BAN the tar-sands.

By: Iredeu

Iredeu — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:22:46 +0000

But this is such a stupid remark when you include coal-to-liquids.
Without any due diligence everybody just copies what everybody else says.
That is just as bad as outright lying.
Do you poeple have no scruples?
Coal to liquids is easily MUCH cleaner than conventional petroleum fuels.
MUCH less CO2, and MUCH, MUCH less other emissions.
It’s really incomprehensible that the environmentalists don’t embrace CTL. They are fighting one of the ‘windmills’ they should be thrilled about!

If you say that CTL emits more CO2 or even twice as much CO2 as conventional fuels, it is basically the same as saying that having water faucetts in your kitchen is responsible for flooding of the floors. For the water we have sinks and wash basins, for the CO2 we have CO2 sequestering, a PROVEN and USED method of taking care of the problem.

Blogs are responsible if they repeat the lies that are being spread without checking.