Image: JON LOWENSTEIN Redux Pictures
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The remote northern corner of Alberta is home to the tar sands, a sprawling deposit of thick, heavy oil that is among the most greenhouse gas–intensive forms of petroleum to produce. In the past decade Canada has become the U.S.'s primary supplier of imported petroleum—ahead of Saudi Arabia—and more than half of it comes from this Florida-size reserve, the only place in the world where oil is mined, not drilled. Should President Barack Obama sign off on construction of the Keystone XL pipeline this year, the flow of tar sands oil, known as bitumen, into the U.S. would increase.
Sourcing more oil from Canada achieves the politically desirable goal of making the U.S. less dependent on OPEC. But bitumen exacts a heavy toll on the environment. As compared with conventional Saudi oil, it emits twice as much greenhouse gas per barrel because of the resources needed to process it. And although it is net-positive— providing between 7 and 10 Btu (British thermal units) of energy for every 1 Btu put into the tar sands—it is less so than conventional petroleum. Once it is mined, bitumen requires large amounts of gas-heated water to melt and separate it from the coarse grains of sand to which it is bound. At that point, the bitumen is still too tarry to flow, so it has to be chemically manipulated with heat and pressure to become yellowish crude oil, diesel, jet fuel or other typical hydrocarbon products. Or it can be diluted with light hydrocarbon liquids to become pitch-black “dilbit” (for “diluted bitumen”), capable of traveling via pipeline to the U.S.
Some environmental scientists see tapping the oil sands as a disastrous tipping point for global warming. In an analysis of how to restrain warming to an increase of two degrees Celsius or less above preindustrial levels, the International Energy Agency suggested that tar sands production should not exceed 3.3 million barrels a day. Yet approved tar sands production would surpass five million barrels a day—a fact that NASA climatologist James Hansen calls “game over for climate change.”
Of course, the true challenge is reducing the use of all fossil fuels, not just oil. U.S. coal-fired power plants produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than Albertan oil sands. Even so, power plant emissions have begun to decline, while the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers notes that CO2 pollution from oil sands has risen 36 percent since 2007. As the U.S. weighs construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, the problem of tapping the oil sands is only getting stickier.
This article was originally published with the title A Dirty Business.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentI am all for importing more oil from Canada, even the tar sands oil, for many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, there is security. I would rather send my wealth to the Canadians than to people who are politically and religiously opposed to the US. The dramatic amount of wealth the US has sent to the Middle East over the last half century has led to the massive increase in the consequences of local unrest and turned inter-tribal conflict into a world-wide threat that must be countered by increased military expenditures by the US and most of the rest of the industrialized world.
Second, there is the environment. While tar sands oil is much dirtier than Middle Eastern oil, it is not nearly as dirty as coal. Driving down the cost of oil in the United States would encourage the conversion of power plants from the use of coal to the use of oil. Already this is happening with natural gas as the price of natural gas drops due to fracking. We can acknowledge the impact fracking is having on the quality of ground water while also acknowleging that burning natural gas is many fold better than burning coal. The same can be said for tar sands oil. In addition, tar sands oil can be shipped by pipeline, a much less greenhouse intense method than running a fleet of super tankers around the world, and a safer one as well.
Third, there is economics. The wealth we transfer to Canada is much more likely to circulate back to the US than the wealth we transfer to the Middle East. This will help to advance our economy instead of draining it. Additionaly, protecting our access to the oil of the Middle East is economically draining and cannot be ignored in the equations for the cost of a barrel of oil, even though it often is. We will not face that cost when purchasing Canadian oil.
So, tar sands provide 10% - 30% less net energy per ton of CO2 than the most carbon efficient crude. How is that "game over"? It's still a lot better than coal!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget that a foreign based company has been given the right to legally take land from private, U.S. citizens. Also, when a spill happens liability will become a problem as it has in the Kalamazoo River spill. No one knows the toxicity of the thinning agents that will enter the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuge amounts of economic spin offs and technical know how have been and are to the net benefit of USA from the oilsands. For example there are thousands of slurry pumps that are US manufactured used at the oilsands mines and downstream. The GIW [Georgia Iron Works] pumps used to pump the slurry from face of the mine to baseplants are among the largest in the world. The wet parts of these pumps wash out in six months or less in the most severe oilsands applications and as a result need to be completly replaced as wear parts that command a very handsome price. As another example the huge front end loaders, shovels, and trucks manufactured and assembled in the US also operate in similar severe duty applications in the area, and are also responsible for many thousands of quality US jobs; from foundry, engineering, supply chain, research, and the like. Just a few 'for examples'-there are thousands, literally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the same time, environmental harm has to be more rigorously monitored and aggressively decreased, CO2 has to be recycled or sequestered, remediation has to be gold star, and the like. The days are long gone when the US stands still for business as usual in the use of this resource.
We already receive oil from Alberta via five pipelines. The XL is designed to bypass such lines in order to send refined products onto the global market. Did you know that fifty percent of the refining capability on the TX coast, those that are in potential receivorship of the Canadian bitumen, are owned by the Saudis on our land (in what is called an "international trade zone")? They pay zero tax as a result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough it seems you have thought about it a bit, you have neglected to acknowledge the simple fact that the oil that would be sent through our boundaries is not for US comsumption.
moss boss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough it seems you have thought about it a bit, you have neglected to acknowledge the simple fact that the oil that would be sent through our boundaries would be free from the ever present threat of interruption in the way that petroleum from the explosive Middle East is.
That means freedom from wild upswings in the price of petroleum even from just rumors of a new Middle East crisis.
That means even if Iran did something crazy at the Straights of Hormuz (like they threatened last year), there would be an uninterrupted source of oil from the North American continent.
Uninterrupted for the military. And to heat our homes.
Dennis2sheds,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't "bury your head in the sand".
Make no mistake about it.
Canada will build a pipeline.
The world needs now and for the foreseeable future as alternative energy alternatives will only slowly come on line.
The only question is whether it will be to the coast or to the US.
A pipeline to the coast means crude will have to be loaded onto tankers, and navigated through the narrow, rocky channels where the mountains extend right to the sea. Do you not recall the Exxon Valdez?
Pipeline leaks are immediately detected and and spills are minor compared to the ecological disaster of tankers hitting the rocks.
And crude being refined in the US is subject to stringent environmental requirements. Who knows what the practice will be in China and other nations who buy the crude and refine it in within their borders?
Now, after reflection ...
What do you now think is better for the environment?
"U.S. coal-fired power plants produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than Albertan oil sands." - David Biello in the above article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver 50% of electricity in the US is derived from coal powered electric plants.
So there would seem to be a bonanza for the environment to use Canada's tar sands instead of dirty old coal.
But this will never happen.
Why not?
Crude is way too expensive.
The ingenious technology of fracking has freed up huge amounts of natural gas, sending prices plunging.
Everywhere, dirty coal fired electical plants are going off line and being replaced by much more clean burning natural gas.
If electricity is cheap enough, plug in cars may even make a dent in the US.
And we certainly don't want electric cars ultimately powered by dirty coal plants.
So Mother Earth is getting break while alternative forms of energy go through the difficult growing phase.
A break in CO2 production from cleaner burning electric plants from the wonders of science and technology.
Who would have thought that Canada's Tar Sands and fracking of natural gas would be so good in the short term?
You state that: "That means freedom from wild upswings in the price of petroleum even from just rumors of a new Middle East crisis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe XL pipeline will pump roughly 600,000 bpd to the coast (of which 90% is expected to be transported to the international market). . . .
Regardless of the oil being shipped abroad, 600k represents roughly .6% (6 tenths of one percent) of the daily global oil consumption.
Do you really think that would have a dent in the amount of oil that is consumed both globally and also by the US (19 million bbd) on a daily basis?
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=consumption
Are you paid by an oil company?
I think Alberta oil sands production should go to eastern Canada where it will displace oil imported from Venezuala for Canadian consumption. That will keep the value added refinery jobs in Canada rather than shipping them to the USA or China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArgument 1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOR, we could just increase the fuel economy of our vehicles so that we don't need to plow Canada's forests under to get all that climate-destroying tar sands, some of which will leak into our aquifers as it snakes it's way to the Gulf Coast where most of it will be refined (releasing pollution that causes cancer clusters around oil refineries) and then exported to BRIC countries where fuel demand is increasing (and not consumed in the USA for the most part because our fuel demand has been flat or decreasing for years). I agree that sending all that money to the Middle East, enriching people who have no idea of what to do with that wealth, is a bad idea. However, you're setting up a false choice when there is clearly another option you are forgetting.
Argument 2:
The electric utilities have already finished a remarkable near-elimination of oil-fired power plants in the USA and you want them to switch back? What happens when we FINALLY have to put a price on CO2 emissions? What happens when the Middle East becomes more unstable (partially because of climate change) and oil prices shoot through the roof? At $100 per barrel, oil turns into electricity at $0.18 A KILOWATT-HOUR!!!! You'd also have to throw in the cost to build, maintain and eventually decommission all these oil-fired power plants you would want to build. Keep in mind, even the huge potential production numbers for the tar sands are dwarfed by OPEC and their ability to control world oil prices. If the Canadians turn on the spigot, they'll just turn it down (or the BRIC countries will buy up the excess), keeping prices where they are. Besides, oil-fired electricity is just like coal in the fact that its pollution causes greater damages than its electricity sales are worth:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Argument 3:
Isn't it even better for the economy to make fuel-efficient and even plug-in cars here in the USA and use home-grown electricity to fuel them? We can also make money selling these products and technologies to the rest of the world at a handsome profit!
jimfromcanada,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to see Canada expand its refining capabilities.
A secure North American source of refined petroleum products would benefit Canada, and indeed the whole world.
Safe to say, most Americans place a great trust in the shared values of the great nation of Canada.
Night and day.
Canada as a world power of energy instead of OPEC, Putin or Chinese refiners.
Sounds great to me.
But lets all hope that renewable energy can be developed to stop the global warming. Just one example of the effects on Canada is the rapid destruction of the Canadian permafrost with a dangerous acceleration of CO2 result as just one example of the dangers of human induced global warming.
But I agree that taking reasonable plans for secure energy for the very immediate future must be made.
sault:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArgument 1:
We are increasing the fuel efficiency standards of vehicles - to 54.5 mpg.
But right now efficient gasoline engines are better for the environment than dirty coal powered electric cars. [About half of electricity in the US is produced by generating plants that use coal. Two thirds of the energy in coal plants is wasted in the generation of electricity, an "inconvenient truth" ignored by electic car promoters. Further energy is lost in converting the AC current into the stored potential electro-chemical energy in the battery, and then when the battery energy is used to power the motor. Thus aside from SUV's and bloated cruisemobiles, most gasoline cars are more efficient and better for the environment than plug ins. But do your part - get a Toyota Prius. Better yet, move near work, sell your car and take mass transportation.]
Argument 2: The US utilities will not switch back to oil fueled generating plants. Fracking has produced a glut of cheap cleaner burning natural gas. Electric companies are moving as fast as they can to shutter the dirty coal plants and replace them with natural gas powered plants. [But we need more wind, solar and hydro - electric plants. Problem is the wind doesn't always blow, the sun is out way less than half the day in the winter, and hydro-electric has its own problems with dams changing the environment.]
Argument 3: The United States government does not build cars.
Private companies do. See Argument #1 as to why plug ins are no where near the panacea most perceive them to be. (It amazes me that no one seems to know where electricity in the US comes from.)
I believe in the looming catastrophe of human-caused global warming; I do not believe in the gung-ho development of the Alberta oil sands; but this article is hyperbole, and SA is hypocritical in publishing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe coal mining that has raped, and is raping much of Appalachia has contributed far, far more CO2 to our atmosphere than oil sands production. So the lights and the air conditioning at the SA offices are courtesy of dirty coal
Oil sands oil produces 6 to 8% more CO2 per barrel than conventional oil. How much more per equivalent energy output from coal? 30% or even 40%! So pointing your finger at the Alberta oil sands and saying their production will make all the differnce in global warming is nonsense, and hypocrisy.
What SA should be promoting if it wants to fight global warming is a policy of reducing the use of coal for power generation, and a policy of much higher gasoline and oil prices across the US, prices that would include the environmental burden associated with the use of all fossil fuels, rather than picking out one (conveniently foreign) source and demonizing it.
"But right now efficient gasoline engines are better for the environment than dirty coal powered electric cars."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
Using the national average, hybrids come close to beating EVs on CO2 emissions, but conventional gasoline vehicles are WAY higher. Besides, if you live in the Pacific Northwest with all its hydro power or California with its increasing percentage of renewable energy (same thing goes for many Plains States installing tons of wind), your EV starts out MUCH cleaner than the national average and gets cleaner as more renewable energy is installed.
And where did you get the idea I said that the government should build and sell these cars?
Why would ANY oil company build enough oil or refined product storage "sitting down in Texas" to have ANY impact on fuel prices? Do you even realize how big that "container" would have to be to have any effect? (More like a decent-sized lake!) This would cut into profits, both in its construction and in any potential lower fuel prices this impractical feat of engineering could achieve. AND GET THIS...it would only affect REGIONAL prices "down in Texas" while the rest of the country would have to use much more expensive fuel refined a lot closer to the present time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have not acknowledged the simple math that I proposed in my refutation to your post. Again, regardless of who is supplying the oil, the US is merely refining the product and sending it overseas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may not understand that there is no "reservoir" in existence, and there will not be one that we can tap; the refined oil from Alberta has already been sold before it reaches the TX coast and is refined.
Your original post seems to allude to the false understanding that the oil will be consumed by the US. It will not.
Further, after the Alberta bitumen reaches the TX coast, it is refined by corporations (one of which is ARAMCO) that sit on an international trade zone. The US has no clout as to where it is shipped.
Here you go Sault:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997398
A little outdated, but interesting.
Why don't the Canadians refine their own oil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOCEANOGENIC POWER, a dam of 350m height, a spillway of 2 km, and 10 HTS coaxial lines, can lead to U.S. 2 Tw for electricity and hydrogen electrolysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSupplying to the United States today: 70% of baseload, 100% of the peak demand, and 100% of the electrolysis of hydrogen in site.
Also, with 200Pa hydrogen electrolysis already refuels, in-site, to less than $1/gge in current engines and at the end an smart transition of the infrastructure: to less than $0.25/gge and for several centuries.
And for the transition of infrastructure, this giga hydroelectric, in a tropical little country of 3 million inhabitants (let yourself of stories, for USA is easy to handle, and if not, I can tell how) at the output of the turbines would take renewable methane, 300 times cheaper than from any other mess.
I also agree that building the Keystone pipeline for Canadian oil is a net benefit for both the country and the world. While the tar sands oil is not ideal for the environment, it is better than the alternative. Which is that oil will find it's way to China one way or the other. China has far too much dependance on coal, and processed crude from the US to relieve that dependance is as good an outcome as we can realistically hope for. What's good for China's air is good for our air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe United States is awash in tar sands oil now more than ever as it is, yet our carbon footprint has been declining. The pipeline will create positive economic benefits for most Americans thru jobs, taxes, increased spending, and reduced energy pricing. Furthermore, it will transport cleaner burning natural gas from the Bakken to the refineries at reduced cost which is a huge environmental benefit as a multitude of trucks and trains will be used far less.
The bottom line is renewables are nowhere near ready to deliver the energy this growing world desperately needs. Renewables won't be ready this century to be more than a supplemental energy source at their current growth projections unless dramatic and unforeseen advancements take place.
The world cannot wait, it needs more energy now and in the near future. Looking at all immediately available and realistic options, the Keystone pipeline carrying tar sands oil to US refineries is beneficial to this country's citizens and the environment as a whole.
The US likes to invade countries that has oodles of $4/bbl to produce Oil in the ground. Canada's $80/bbl to produce Oil is not very attractive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEndless defense of fossil fuel. Endless reasons to NOT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisact responsibly. Like all changes to culture, a threshold
must be met either by body count or general adversity to
great to ignore.
So we will continue to adhere to indefensible arguments
in the name of 'what else can we do' mindset.
I call it the DUH period where the information is out there but the population in general has yet to fully grasp.
The Earth is a giant centrifugal hydraulic pump subjected to a regime of self-recirculation, that in Panama has formed a head of water of 0.3 to 15 meters between the Pacific and Atlantic, separated 70 kilometers (44 miles), and that also : potentially can develop a flow, virtually unlimited, for energy generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama, which, at a cost of 3 cents per kwh, and the new HTS lines, makes available to all present civilization, enough, clean energy.
And as contemporary discovery of the "Informatic Revolution", proves more than ever, the benefits of making good use of our human talent: preventing us relapse into the traditional and sad postures, of use it to destroy us; in accordance with preserve, for the hardy, only a small part of the earth; and calling us insist on postures, at last reached, and increasingly convinced that together we can , and we are needed to conquer the universe.
If you only see in this politics, then, YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST
Your oceanogenic power in Panama is grossly exaggerated. If you build a spillway 2km wide, 40m deep to connect Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The 0.37m sea level difference can generate a potential energy of 780 MW. That's smaller than a typical coal plant. And it will cost you enormous money to build this 70km long spillway, total volume is 5.6 billion cubic meters. That's 100x larger than Panama Canal!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA little misleading. You don't JUST get gasoline from crude oil. You get diesel, asphalt and a load of other hydrocarbons coming out of the frac tower. I don't know if your figures take this into account. Regardless, these losses are in SERIES, meaning that you use 1 unit of energy to get 7 out of the tar sands (14%) and then you have to spend 1 unit of energy to get 5 units of gasoline. At the end, you have spent over 30% of the original energy content of the tar sands to get gasoline, and that's only if the tar sands energy investment figures include the energy used during the upgrading process on the bitumen. I've seen figures showing a 4-to-1 EROEI for the tar sands operations when upgrading is taken into account, while wikipedia says 5 - 6:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands#Input_energy
And then you put the gasoline you make into a 4000 - 6000 lb vehicle that throws away 80% of the energy in the fuel as waste heat...on a good day...Since you can't use bitumen or crude oil to do this, your argument is kind of pointless.
If the 7 BTU from tar sands is not useful energy, then it is the article that is misleading. That's why I'm questioning the 7 BTU. Why give a figure that's not useful energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW the 80% waste heat is not the exclusive property of gasoline. It is a property of thermodynamic engines not the fuel used. If you use biofuels, you'll still get 80% waste heat. So comparing energy efficiency in producing different kinds of fuel is a good point.
Dr. Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Ocharpen
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B650oxtezmd9Y2EwNGZmMzEtZTkyNC00ZWUyLWE0YjUtYjdiNTE5MTIwZjJl/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
http://www.academia.edu/1478086/OCEANOGENIC_POWER
To continue with the exaggerated use of petroleum, is paid exaggeration that the exaggerated: it can not be.
Label bad, and without informing me well, any idea that subconscious fear, seems to contradict my interest, is anachronistic in the 21st century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are in the "informatic revolution" and some still speak of engineering problems of the 19th century.
Well, back to the 15th century: USA, with OCEANOGENI POWERC of Panama, can repeat what did the Catholic Monarchs, when the last loan that contaban, paid the exaggeration, or lie crazy, of Columbus, and ended the economic crisis in that country , and the world.
I already read your references. You don't need another canal in Panama connecting Pacific and Atlantic oceans to harness the Coriolis effect. An undersea turbine can harness the energy of ocean currents. Besides, the Coriolis effect in Panama is weak since it is near the equator at 9 degrees latitude. The Coriolis effect is stronger in northern Canada and Russia at 75 degrees latitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Friend: So my English is bad, and I do not know Russian.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the centrifugal force, which took advantage, the tangential velocity at 9° north is 457 m/s, and the problem of underwater turbines, is that maintenance is more expensive than wind turbines, which already: it is expensive. In addition, their efficiency is maximum 50%.
Also, do not interest me another navigation canal, as I began to develop my discovery, reported of the same, to which sponsored expand the canal, a NATO franchise, and did not believe or did not want, full of fear and jealousy, bear in consideration, this important alternative.
And, I clarify, the Power Oceanogenic begins with static energy; but triggers, the kinetics; which leverages the Vortex, and Cosmic hydraulic pump, which is the planet Earth.
And front of the political detail, one you insinuate, is the political big problem of world war because, reached peak oil. Ecological and intelligently, which of two political problems you wants to solve? I prefer to make another canal, and prevent another war for our stupidity.
Good discussion on this story, overall. Thanks. We remove comments that are hostile and/or include name-calling and insults. We are only interested in comments that advance dialogue directly related to the material in the content on the site. Commenting on this site is a privilege, not a right. If you abuse this privilege more than once, we will consider deleting your account.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore, climate change, the game is not over, on the contrary, is beginning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUSA needs to keep moving: 33Twh per day, to 5% efficiency, if we include the brakes. This requires 24 Keystone projects, or jeopardize worldwide, by increasing 1500% their nuclear facilities.
Instead I suggest, keep that nuclear fuel, and further develop such technology for the future, when we need to save our planet from possible contingencies of extinction.
The solution would also be natural gas, but expensive: even if get for free, to transport it, have to liquefy it; chained at least in propane. For this, it is driving the price increase.
The cheapest solution is OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama, that you can start with 33Twh per day (for those who are afraid, also 3 Twh, the same as those the Keystone project) and scalar to 500twh per day, and for the whole world in 500 years.
Improving efficiency by 1000,....maybe, with the electric drive and braking with feedback,..... USA would need, 77Gwh; then, the wind would be solution.
But if this is done, the 33Twh of OCEANOGENIC POWER, would be enough for the whole world.
The sun is a solution for the future, when improves the efficiency of solar panels.
Feeding the grid with enough clean energy, makes it unnecessary, fuel transportation, and pipelines; superconducting lines would be used to carry the electricity, and fuel, would be electrolyzed at home or in the office, or wherever there is water, dirty or clean.
Of course, electrolysis has to be, at least at 200 bar, for hydrogen to cost $ 1 per gge.
I would think there could be other ways to heat the tar-sand like using microwaves or those mirror reflector towers that heat water to extreme temps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe calculation of oceanogenic power is wrong. You cannot use earth's tangential velocity because the whole earth is moving at same velocity. You can't even get such elementary physics right. Your mega engineering project is fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are making the mistake of applying friction to the movement of fluids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe friction is proportional to weight, and are so used to the phenomenon that we find it strange when this does not exist, or is proportional to something else, such as speed, which is the case of the parachute.
In hydraulic, friction exists only in contact with a solid, and the shear force, into the fluid is proportional to the derivative of the speed, and is not friction. That's why you have to study for three years, or more, for hydraulic know.
OCEANOGENIC POWER, is not elementary physics, which means that the mathematics used is not elementary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysical phenomena explained with these math, do not explain more complex physical phenomena. It is a semantic error, or a deception to mind: we can not explain complex physical phenomena with elementary physics, but we can, and we can only, work complex math, using elementary mathematics.
If we are not attentive, we will have the absurd premise, that mathematics is proportional to physics.
Here's 2 logical questions directly related to the content of this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The author states: "U.S. coal-fired power plants produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than Albertan oil sands."
Q.1 By this logic, wouldn't it be more productive to replace coal with tar sands oil; or, at least picket the coal industry? But isn't tar sands pipeline is being picketed mainly due to potential spills, not climate impact?
2. The author states: "CO2 pollution from oil sands has risen 36 percent since 2007".
Q.2 Isn't the rise of 36% due to the fact that tar sands oil only started production output recently? So 36% of a small number before 2007, is still a small number. This seems like political statistics.
I'm only asking for honest answers to honest questions. I have no other agenda here; not a fan of the oil industry; not a climate change denier. Just looking for good science and good math.
Mr. David Biello wrote: "Of course, the true challenge is reducing the use of all fossil fuels, not just oil"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is the discovery of upper layer: OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama that from USA, is the same distance between Shanghai and its power source: The World's Largest Hydropower: The Three Gorges, and also, can produce methane and propane, 300 vecesa cheaper, and in a manner 1000 times cleaner that otherwise.
I heard that processed oil sand sinks and does not float. This stuff totally wiped out the Kalamazoo River. Oil that sinks equals dead rivers, streams, and lakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis stuff is super dangerous in any pipe line. They better have new pipes and monitor them. Just as dangerous as nuclear waste, since it destroys a very large area. But the oil companies don't want you to know this little fact. The clean-up from the Kalamazoo River was 550 million and it did not work well. This story was kept well under wraps by the oil companies...
http://www.onearth.org/article/tar-sands-oil-plagues-a-michigan-community
The Oceanogenic power source is: 11km of cosmic potential energy; and 457m/s of cosmic kinetic energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we can change, the water velocity only 1m/s, we obtain 1MW per cubic meter of power.
The satelite Altimetry say that we can do it; in Panama: by simple gravity. And the ocean current informs us, the maximum flux that we must wait: 30 to 100 million cubic meters per second.
For the current civilization, we need only 1 million cubic meter. Multiply and read the details.
We do not need more oil, no coal, no dirty energy. Also, no need for more pipelines, nor the risky tankers.
Which is the fear of retiring? It is not enough what has already been won?
The USA is clearly the environment's greatest enemy. Whether it be republicans or democrats, the environment is being treated with the same contempt as the amerindians were. Any goodwill the US may have accumulated during WW2 has now been dilapidated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican policy is suicidal.
Finally, a question and its answer, to unmask, and erase the doubts sown by the promoters of "buts to all":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy an earthquake in Indonesia, for example, moves the solid part of the planet, even more violently that the liquid part, and only the liquid part is that, even causing death, reaches 5000 kilometers to Africa?
Because the solid loses energy in friction, and no the hydraulic, this, transfers its energy.