Shared publicly  - 
Please watch this video
I used to think that Conservationalist were tree huggers and a bit crazy.

I appologize for ever thinking such (a decade or more ago).

The 'free' market wants to strip mine an area the size of Florida. It is one of the most diverse and intact ecosystems on the planet.

Please watch this video. Please Share it.

Ask me what the energy answer is.

I'd honestly rather walk than to see this happen to Canada.
#sustainability #green #tarsands #oilsands #oil #fossilFuels #tedtalk
Shirley Smith's profile photoTilman Vogel's profile photoATM Mozibul Alam's profile photoMichael Ringland's profile photo
Adding this one to my list. If you suggest it and it's re: sustainability and energy, it's a must-see! Thanks.
If you've never been inside an area where petrochemicals are being extracted or processed then this film will open your eyes.

Additionally one should research coal fly ash storage and beryllium processing - those are some of the worst under-documented hazards in North America (and world wide as well)
i been a tree huggin hippie all my thinking life, when i see this i know who the environazis's us....these things are done in our name.....rise up, fight the good fight!
What is the no tax increase, no budget funding increase, remedy to Health care and the Energy crisis for Americans.

Bicycles and Trains GET ON BOARD TODAY
we are about to bring in a carbon tax in Australia or more like a carbon trading scheme really, the conservative opposition is squeeling like a stuck pig, amid all the politics there is still the fact that a vast majority of australians want something done, this 'tax' may not be perfect but i believe it's effects will trickle down, let those who pollute pay, directly or indirectly, and incentivise new ways of doing things...
Considering the economic times.. chances of convincing them to leave the tar in the ground are slim and none and slim left town.
Harper and his government are drunk with the money from big oil who don't care a whit about the environment.
They only care about profits.. and in the case of the tar sands.. it's profit at any cost.
Hi Daniel,

Ironic, isn't it? The original champions of Conservation were conservatives/progressives...
It then spread by progressives into the liberal 'camp' with environmentalism.

Today, the NeoRepublicans are stuck on stupid with NeoCon Ideology - and the above history is never recognized. As a matter of fact - many NeoRepublicans are more than happy to scream at you and scapegoat you as a tree huggin' liberal pinko socialist commie just because you're wise to want to conserve some wild lands and have clean air and water -

Which also explains why they hate democracy so much(of course, they frame it as 'the government') - because your voice of reason can be heard over their sound and fury.

It's a rude awakening to the 21st century where it's time to recognize the enemy within...
Thanks for sharing. it truly is terribly disastrous what we are doing to this planet and ourselves. we need to stop consuming at the pace capitalism requires consumption rates to stay alive. it's not sustainable and as sadly depicted in that video, if we dont change everything right now, we are going to make earth inhabitable
LOL +Chris Brorsen , an article from June of last year? Ahem, solar is already much cheaper in many part of the world (de-centralized production) than diesel or coal - no repeated fuel purchases and no auxiliary costs for the needed support infrastructure - the 'third world' is about to leap over the 'first world'...

As for the technological 'quick-fix' comment - well - solar has been under constant development and refinement since the 1950s - wind has been around as a regular power source since the middle ages...

Wind is already cheaper than coal or natural gas in many areas - including Michigan!

The fact is oil and coal are short lived energy sources - temporary alternatives that had a use for a few hundred years in human history...

But your right about this - the era of large scale waste is over - and will result in either a soft landing - or a destructive crash unlike any ever witnessed before in human history.

I'll work diligently for the soft landing. I hope you do too...
+Daniel Ely Rankin, thank you very much for sharing that talk as it is far easier to comprehend the passion of the Keystone Pipeline protest with this added context (not that I ever supported that completely insane project).

In response to this talk, I'd like to suggest that those interested in the energy situation listen to the entirety of Chris Martenson's talk last year about the IEA's energy forecast and its implications- particularly the non-linear effects of declining ore quality on energy demand. What many people who suggest wind and solar as alternatives fail to grasp is the difficulty for these renewable sources to provide the quantity of energy we really need, and that isn't just to maintain what many consider a gratuitous lifestyle- but actually merely survival in the 21st century.

Chris Martenson's presentation at the Gold & Silver Meeting in Madrid

Full electric vehicles currently require a copious quantity of lithium. At current unofficial estimates of world reserves, lithium could theoretically provide maybe 40 million Nissan Leaf-type vehicles using half of those reserves. Even though over 250 billion tonnes reside in the world's oceans, tapping that resource is quite expensive, and batteries are already almost cost prohibitive (but the technology is steadily improving in energy density). The technology needs to radically improve before it will be widely viable in this form. People who have been paying attention to world events might have noticed that one of the primary interests in Afghanistan relates to their sources of lithium in brine deposits. So, the demand for using lithium for electrical storage is shaping international affairs.

Better to support fuel cell vehicles which require a far smaller battery.

Now, one of the best renewable energy sources that I've seen is concentrated solar power. eSolar thinks that they can achieve over a 70% capacity factor. They estimate that they can produce one GWe with about 8 square miles of coverage. That would put a terawatt of production at 8000 square miles- not an insignificant environmental impact. I do not know how much that is going to cost with dry cooling (required due to facility preference for arid regions with predominately clear weather). If these facilities are going to generate electricity, the cost of transmission 2000 miles to the East cost is a huge undertaking. It might be better to envision such a system synthesizing a hydrogen energy carrier like ammonia (hydrogen is very inefficient to transport). It may turn out to be practical, but it is certainly neither ideal, nor as well as what is technically possible.

Here's eSolar's DoE proposal:

Which brings me to nuclear fission. Anyone familiar with Daniel's posts knows that LFTR is very likely to be viable, and is far preferable to all of the alternatives. That is why we're advocating for joining of the Thorium Race, an international competition to address the energy crisis and preserve civilization. We're going to need all of that cheap and abundant energy for cleaning up this atrocious mess!

Of course, we still need to develop a Bridge Plan that will take us from where we are to where we need to be.
Unfortunately, oil - namely gasoline - is going to be essential for the foreseeable future. Battery powered vehicles can only meet a portion of ground transportation needs and virtually no air travel needs.

I am 100% on board with weening off of oil in every way possible, but until something equally as revolutionary as the combustion engine (a-la Mr. Fusion) comes along - and is cheap - there will always be a demand for it in some capacity.
+Jason Faulkner

Carbon fuels can by synthesized provided adequate heat, electricity, and feedstocks (C4 flora biomass is probably going to be the most practical carbon-neutral source). Ammonia is probably going to turn out to be the most practical energy carrier for most transportation needs, which can be produced at ~60% efficiency with the latest solid state synthesis.

[Nuclear ammonia]

I'd like to know what the current status of direct-ammonia fuel cell development is- like how far it is from commercialization. The last presentation I saw is now 5 years old. Current PEM fuel cell technology might work with ammonia provided the reformer details work out, but this of course is not ideal, and I am not up to speed on the details.
+Corey Barcus - My understanding of the synthesis process is that it is wildly inefficient (you cite 60%, but I honestly don't know) in that it requires significantly more energy - which will likely be supplied by some form of fossil fuel - than it produces in the desired form.

As for alternately technologies, we can currently only get about 50 miles or so on consumer level car batteries so this technology is way behind where it should be. Introducing an alternate power source will likely add years of R&D before it reaches the consumer market.
+Jason Faulkner

The point is to use nuclear energy (or even concentrated solar power) to synthesize.

[Solid state synthesis]

Yes, developing appropriate technology will take years of development- there is no getting around that since we have been very inconsistent in our support for dealing with this problem.

We are definitely in a jam here, and our excuse is that as a society we have easily succumbed to short-sighted policy and punditry. My intention is to point to where we need to go, and then head off in that direction as quickly as possible.
I wanted to add.. after all the comments.. that there is a way to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels AND reduce CO2, AND we get to keep our gas burning cars too!
It's a process that is essentially carbon neutral, providing fuel for vehicles and sequesters carbon into a solid material that can be used to enhance sub standard soils.
+Tim Southernwood

You are obviously very enthusiastic about this approach. I did not find it very convincing. What is the net energy of the approach (EROEI)? How much land per GW of energy? Some of the methods may find a use, but this hardly seems like a significant part of the solution.
+Jason Faulkner the Azure Dynamics Transit Connect gets 80 miles on a charge. a bit over 50. But ya, until we have fuel cells are batteries that make it 250 miles plus, that dont' cost more than gasoline vehicles up front, we aren't gonna see a consumer switch.

The problem again is the sheer volume of scarce resources to construct such vehicles.

And the fact that we use 50% coal to power our grid currently.
+Tim Southernwood will defintely watch the vid, thanks

Again, as Corey mentioned, my money is on Thorium. I am currently seeking $2m in investment capital for the first phase of a lab that is developing this safe nuclear tech. With abundant power we could synthesize carbon fuels for a carbon neutral fuel cycle.
Thanks +Corey Barcus I am enthusiastic as far as this appears to be a very workable solution.. and although I'm not able to provide any answer to your question.. I would like to point out a few of the key benefits that impressed me.
First.. the carbon residue of the plants is captured in a stable form and will remain so for a LONG time, and is used to enhance soils.. improving areas that can't grow anything into areas that can grow these and other crops.
Here's the company site
Perhaps they can provide you more information that might help to convince you there is some promise with this approach.
I like it better than digging up Alberta tar sand!
The video mentions only needing 3% of the worlds landmass to start reversing atmospheric CO2, if it can be done in desert lands where he suggests, thats pretty serious.
I'm all for Thorium reactors as well Daniel! They are definitely a better answer to power generation!
Thorium will take many years to replace present facilities.. (even if they do accept it over nuclear.. and because of the inertia in that process.. I fear it will take a long time to be accepted)
It will also be a long time before this energy could be used to produce synth fuels.. and the science tells us we don't have a long time.. we need to act immediately.
Another issue.. unless the cost of electric vehicles drops significantly.. most people are going to continue to pump gas into the ol' guzzler...
While this approach is not likely to be workable in all situations (can colder climates grow enough of the biomass to produce enough fuel for consumers?) there's no doubt for energy poor countries with very long growing seasons.. this could be the answer to their needs.
+Tim Southernwood

No need to replace. Let them live their routine life. We are talking about small rapidly deploy-able reactors.

I mentioned I'm seeking funding. with some red tape, we are looking at 10ish years to start production on a boeing jet manufacturing scale. talking 100mw plants by the day possibly.
+Tim Southernwood

Thanks for the link. They claim 4000 gallons from one acre (optimum yield). I'm assuming that's annual output. I'm not going to bother with the energy requirements just yet which will make the CoolPlanet proposal a lot less appealing (besides I don't know what they are!).

The US consumes around 7 billion barrels of oil annually.

So, just a few very rough estimates for the scale of our fuel requirements:

1) CoolPlanet - over 100k square miles of cultivation (similar to the area covered by the Great Lakes)

2) eSolar - 20k square miles using concentrated solar power system (producing ammonia via solid state synthesis)

3) LFTR - 1200 one-GWe reactors (producing ammonia via solid state synthesis)

And that's just looking at energy content. When you compare fuel cells to ICEs, the ammonia schemes look quite a bit better. Of course, we don't yet have commercially available and affordable direct-ammonia fuel cells.

Maybe I'll try and come up with more accurate numbers later.
+Corey Barcus , +Daniel Ely Rankin - I'm not disputing the path we should/need to be on, I'm just pointing out for the forseeable future, our society requires oil and that has to come from somewhere. While oilsands are a possible source, I think they should be the last place we are looking.
wonder if we would go carbon neutral at $10/gallon?

its sad, but that might be what it takes to get americans to go mass transit.

I am definitely not suggesting it as a plan, it would definitely curtail the economy. we have to get off this train somehow.
+Jason Faulkner

It's a predicament. That we're going after the tar sands indicates just how desperate we are. We're going to try and use natural gas as a substitute, but we need a plan to get out of this situation ASAP.

It looks like we're going to see further economic contractions, and more silly disputes about which leader is more committed to drilling, because "global warming is just a conspiracy cooked up by a bunch of worthless communist-atheist scientists hell-bent on taking our freedom away". We've also got a good portion of the population hell-bent on conducting a religious war, and they have to be "talked down".

So, for those who care, the job is to identify that critical path, and get the country set on it, doing what is reasonably necessary to keep us together until the appropriate carbon-free technology is ready to go.
+Daniel Ely Rankin .. many thanks for the post....and your confession...Frank Zappa spoke to me in the 70's saying...."don't fuck with Billy" (the mountain)... I was a hippie... the problems only have got worse since the 70's...I still feel guilty putting gas in my car - we need an alternative that works...and we need it now.
Add a comment...