The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Cold Lake is an almost 50 year old facility with unusually high carbon emissions. An odd choice for S&P for the only Canadian site.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ng-2021-06-28/

Nobody said it was the only Canadian site tracked.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody said it was the only Canadian site tracked.

Sorry, it was the only one on list you posted, I assumed it was the only one being tracked.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sorry, it was the only one on list you posted, I assumed it was the only one being tracked.

It's sample data. The more detailed (and broader) dataset is probably for the investors who will pay thousands for the info.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Cold Lake is an almost 50 year old facility with unusually high carbon emissions. An odd choice for S&P for the only Canadian site.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ng-2021-06-28/

It’s really a meaningless crudgel to beat Alberta heavy oil with, given using any barrel of oil releases far more CO2 (430 kg) than production and processing release. At the end of the day (2050 in Liberal-speak) Net Zero oil production only means a “reduction” of 10-20% in the “well to wheels” CO2 emissions. And that’s not going to sate the determination of the virtue signalling CO2 zealots to shutdown the demon oil sands.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhous...and-references

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jawagord

It’s really a meaningless crudgel to beat Alberta heavy oil with,

In that case, you really shouldn't be worried about the transparency. Investors can use that data in context.

Originally Posted by jawagord

...given using any barrel of oil releases far more CO2 (430 kg) than production and processing release.

Indeed. Hence, the global push to electrify everything.

Originally Posted by jawagord

At the end of the day (2050 in Liberal-speak) Net Zero oil production only means a “reduction” of 10-20% in the “well to wheels” CO2 emissions. And that’s not going to sate the determination of the virtue signalling CO2 zealots to shutdown the demon oil sands.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhous...and-references

That's not what net zero means. But can't expect you to know the difference....

Know this. At the end of the day, the denialism of your ilk will do more damage to the Canadian oil and gas sector than anything any eco zealot could ever dream of. Sadly, you're too partisan to get it and you'll be ranting about Trudeau in your wheelchair at the old folks home in 2050.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

I really wish the government put better infrastructure in for EV -- I feel that one of the biggest issues stopping people from buying them is the inconvenience of charging them. There really aren't that many charging stations around to make this easy for consumers

Do you know this or is this your opinion?

Go to plugshare.com to see all of the public chargers that exist.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

I really wish the government put better infrastructure in for EV -- I feel that one of the biggest issues stopping people from buying them is the inconvenience of charging them.

That and the fact they have a bad habit to explode

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

That and the fact they have a bad habit to explode

What EVs have exploded?

Even gas cars don't "explode". There's a combustion burst if gas and air mix with fire, but hardly an explosion.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Floppa

That and the fact they have a bad habit to explode

I drive an ICE vehicle and my turn indicator recently caught fire. Guess that's proof the technology is hopelessly flawed!

[Truenorth00]

Somebody's gotta be at the back end of the adoption curve. There's no point even humouring the ignorant. Good policy will keep the transition going. And those who want to pay $2/L in 2035 are welcome to do so.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And those who want to pay $2/L in 2035 are welcome to do so.

Might make financial sense to do that, if a gasoline-powered 2025 Corolla is nearly free. I’d think $2/L is far from enough.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Might make financial sense to do that, if a gasoline-powered 2025 Corolla is nearly free. I’d think $2/L is far from enough.

Won't just be the $2/L. At that point, I suspect gas stations and lube shops will start becoming less convenient, there may be certain areas which prohibit non-electric vehicles, and insurers will definitely start charging more as all the sensor loaded BEVs have less risk. That free Corolla will be more expensive than you think.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What EVs have exploded?

Even gas cars don't "explode". There's a combustion burst if gas and air mix with fire, but hardly an explosion.

Chevy volt and Tesla have both had their batteries combust. Chevy even recalled every Chevy Volt ever made https://teckexperts.com/gm-just-reca...ade-14077.html

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by vid

I drive an ICE vehicle and my turn indicator recently caught fire. Guess that's proof the technology is hopelessly flawed!

The light caught fire?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Chevy volt and Tesla have both had their batteries combust. Chevy even recalled every Chevy Volt ever made https://teckexperts.com/gm-just-reca...ade-14077.html

Uh huh. How many gas cars have caught on fire per million?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uh huh. How many gas cars have caught on fire per million?

Oh come on. Admitting to the truth might hurt his feelings.

There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.

Source: https://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-gas-vehicles

According to a recent FEMA report, “from 2014 to 2016 an estimated 171,500 highway vehicle fires occurred in the United States, resulting in an annual average of 345 deaths; 1,300 injuries; and $1.1 billion in property loss. These highway vehicle fires accounted for 13 percent of fires responded to by fire departments across the nation.”

The report adds, “Approximately one in eight fires responded to by fire departments across the nation is a highway vehicle fire. This does not include the tens of thousands of fire department responses to highway vehicle accident sites.”

Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/03...battery-fires/

Funny how 150 vehicle fires a day in the US doesn't make the national news. But we're supposed to panic for a few badly built Chevy Bolts getting toasty.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Oh come on. Admitting to the truth might hurt his feelings.



Source: https://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-gas-vehicles



Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/03...battery-fires/

Funny how 150 vehicle fires a day in the US doesn't make the national news. But we're supposed to panic for a few badly built Chevy Bolts getting toasty.

Where do majority of EV fires occur? Also where in the vehicles to most the fires originate from? Any vehicle catching fire is dangerous for sure but would think most ICE vehicle fires originate in the engine bay while EVs more likely to originate in the battery pack? Which could make it more dangerous/difficult to exit the vehicle if the fire starts while driving.

I’m starting to think that I’m 3 years I will be getting my first EV, hoping the Ford Lightning is successful.

[MolsonExport]

The usual suspects are once again pushing an agenda of misinformation. Some are baldfaced about their motives, others...well who knows why they do it?
Smoking also doesn't cause lung cancer.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Smoking also doesn't cause lung cancer.

Well it doesn't ALWAYS cause lung cancer!

Not sure about the health of inhaling battery smoke tho. But also probably not the healthiest thing for the people working in the mines to get all the expensive materials you need for your fancy Tesla. Personally, I prefer a car that gives me lots of range and horsepower.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Personally, I prefer a car that gives me lots of range and horsepower.

So, smoke for lung cancer, and carbon emissions to cook the planet?