Skip to main content

View Diary: "Time to Build Keystone XL" - What the American Petroleum Institute is telling elected officials. (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not if you include the petcoke business (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    from the tar sands oil and full lifecycle.  That stuff is 30-80 times worse than burning coal.  Here's some information on it.

    •  Do you read your links? (0+ / 0-)
      Petcoke is over 90 percent carbon and emits 5 to 10 percent more carbon  dioxide (co2) than coal on a per-unit of energy basis when it is burned
      5 to 10% is 300 to 1,600-fold less than what you say.  Massive exaggeration isn't great for one's credibility . .. .

      The report also says that overall the 'petcoke' increases emissions 13% beyond the calculations used by the EPA - which presumably were a California study that found tarsands oil emits 12% more CO2 than conventional oil (Europeans use a 22% figure, so presumably they factor things like this in).

      Part of the problem of the Bakken crude is massive flaring of natural gas -  which makes satellite pictures appear like there are massive cities in the sparsely population northern plains states . . . making it's oil more carbon intensive (I imagine that moving it to market by rail also contributes)

      •  Agreed that the fact that Bakken oil can be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        more dangerous to transfer because of the natural gas.

        Disagree on your other statements.  You neglect the rest of the quote that I pulled from.

        Petcoke is over 90 percent carbon and emits 5 to 10 percent more carbon dioxide (CO 2) than coal on a per-unit of energy basis when it is burned.3 As petcoke has high energy content, every ton of petcoke emits between 30 and 80 percent more CO 2 than coal, depending on the quality of the coal.
        One concern is petcoke being mixed with coal for US power plant usage, which comes with other dangers.
        •  roadbed, the rest of the quote from the link (0+ / 0-)

          • on a per-unit of energy basis petcoke emits 5 to 10 percent more carbon dioxide than coal.

          • a ton of petcoke yields on average 53.6 percent more co2 than a ton of coal.

          It's on the same page, adjacent bullets, did you just miss it?

          Anyway, whoever authored it must have a screw loose, oh wait, it's a marketing document, selling petcoke

          •  The key thing is the 5 to 10 percent increase (0+ / 0-)

            based on the amount of energy produced - that is the key parameter.

            Since considerably more energy is produced per ton of coal, that means that considerably less petcoke can be burned than coal, meaning that overall it's more or less a wash.

            I mean really, if the argument comes down to 5 or 10% when the entire system is a dire threat, that's really a strange way of looking at things.

            Bottom line is that demand must be addressed somehow, not minutia about how this shit is going to get to the consumer.  Which is what KXL is all about.

        •  btw, if you missed this diary (0+ / 0-)

          Our Future is Going Up in Flames

          it is relevant to the current discussion.

          It addresses the (fairly) massive natural gas flaring that accompanies Bakken oil production (which, btw, is not an issue for bitumen extraction).

          To me the bigger issue here is the fraction of NG that is NOT flared, and escapes into the atmosphere as (mostly) methane - a 20x more potent greenhouse gas.

          Early indications are that fugitive methane emissions are fairly massive, constituting a 3 or 4x bigger problem than carbon dioxide emissions (which is the metric that most people fixate upon).

    •  Acccording to "The keystone xl pipeline's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike Kahlow

      "accidental activists" by Tara Lohan and Moyers & Co (Monday, 27 Jan 2014)

      "The Kochs have padded the pockets of everyone from politicians to AstroTurf groups... to stymie action on climate change...greasing the wheels of the fossil fuels industry....hastening approval of Keystone XL."  Why are we supporting the Kochs?

      Also on petcoke.  There was an article on 2 large piles of petcoke - one in Detroit and one in Chicago being shipped out belonging to the Koch industries.  It was about all the fumes coming from the huge piles of petcoke.

      Again, why are we doing anything to support the Kocks?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site