Published: Wednesday, Jan. 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Here's an idea that's full to the brim with merit: Let's
preserve what's left of this sorry toxic world for the next
generation's limited quality of life and end this selfish obsession with
ruining every last patch of ground while delaying the inevitable.America is better than this, but a segment of society (you know the ones)
won't be roused from their dreams of big cars, big houses, and
"affordable" fossil fuels.
The world is rapidly burning up all that nice cheap, clean, sweet light crude.
The stuff that is left is expensive, dirty, and hard to refine. If you have any
doubts about this, just ask yourself why we would be going after "bottom of
the barrel" energy sources like tar sands if we had any better
alternatives?All it takes is a few minutes of googling the phrase
"Canadian tar sands" and you can see what a mess they have created up
in Canada. Do we really want that for our beautiful state of Utah?
QUOTE FROM ATRICLE "U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian firm"They are
even trying to deceive people with their name. U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian
firmThat's just ridiculous.
Choices have consequences. If we choose wind and solar as our primary energy
sources, we'll have to accept a significantly lower standard of living.
Standard of living derives from the cost of energy, or energy ROI if you want to
look at it that way, and how efficiently energy is used. When the cost of energy
goes up and the standard of living goes down, people are displaced from desk
jobs and end up with nowhere to go unless they're willing to become migrant
farm laborers. Since most are unwilling to go that route, the employed end up
supporting them, but that creates a cascading effect forcing the economy down
faster.The obvious choice is nuclear energy. It's safe, clean,
and reliable. But until we come to our senses, we'll have to scramble for
whatever we can get.
We need to consume all of our resources as rapidly as possible, never mind
pollution. We don't need to save anything for future generations.
When we were howling for 'drill, baby', and we will again when the
prices go back up, we were after any kind of domestic production we could get.
Well, here it is, and this one's pretty modest. So we can't go all
nimby on it now. Besides, don't let the internet scare you. You can find
all kinds of stuff about how terrible things are up home at McMurray but
it's kind of like politics. Some of the stuff is put there by people with
an agenda. Yeah, those mines are massive but that's the deal we make to get
the energy; the oil companies and government are doing many things to protect
the environment and methodology improves with time.
The real environmental question is about the water it takes to produce oil from
those sands. If farmers, cities and industrial users all had to pay an
unsubsidized, market rate for their water, and the project was still profitable,
then I'm not opposed to it. But if this project is going to use massive
amounts of cheap subsidized water then it is getting a public subsidy that
enriches the developers at the public's expense.
the old switcharoomesa, AZQUOTE FROM ATRICLE "U.S. Oil
Sands, a Canadian firm"They are even trying to deceive people
with their name. U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian firmThat's just
ridiculous.============= Here, Here -- Agreed.No wonder people in Utah hated the movie "Avatar".Nothing
like looking in the mirror, and seeing you really are.
One very significant detail is missing from this article. How much water will
be required to process those 6000 barrels of oil each day? What will happen to
that water when it the process finishes with it?
My family and I went to Kennecott open pit mine last summer.I was
amazed to learn they use over 2 MILLION gallons of water per DAY.That's more water than all the people of the entire Salt Lake Valley use
combined.Not a good thing for people living in a desert.
To "LDS Liberal" and they recycle 60% of that water so that they do not
have to draw more.I hate to burst your bubble too when it comes to
water use, but according to the EPA, Salt Lake City (not Valley) provides up to
182 million gallons per day during the hot summer months. That means that in 4
days during the summer Salt Lake City uses more water than Kennecott does in a
year. During the rest of the year they average around 90 million gallons per
day. See "Utah: Salt Lake City - Salt Lake City Works with Stakeholders to
Protect its Water Supply" at the EPA website.
DNews, take a close look at the horrific photo you yourselves put up to
illustrate this article. Now tell us honestly that tar sands exploitation can be
done with no impact.
Solar and wind are great, bout in the mean time we need oil until those
technologies get sufficiently advanced. For now let's do both.
"Green Energy" is fictitious. You put up a massive windmill. How much
energy is used to make the steel? Far more than you see or know when you see the
windmill planted. That too must be taken into account when you begin to talk
about "green energy". You people are deceiving yourselves on that. Solar
panels too. How much energy does it take to make the glass or plastic or
whatever is used in the first place?Nuclear would be safer, if one
avoids major problems like those that happened at Chernobyl, and now Fukishima
and elsewhere in Japan. I think nuke power should be pursued, too. As long as
designs, construction, site selection, etc are well designed & thought
out.(On the name of the Canadian company, haven't you long
realized most company names with "USA" in them are foreign
companies)?I say that as long as they can meet "reasonable"
regulatory standards (and, sure, "reasonable" is a matter of opinion), I
think they should be given the go ahead.The same anti-whatever you
want to build mentality, that cost Utahns tens of millions of dollars more to
build the Legacy Parkway come from anti-people obstructionists.
"You put up a massive windmill. How much energy is used to make the steel?
Far more than you see or know when you see the windmill planted. That too must
be taken into account when you begin to talk about "green energy". You
people are deceiving yourselves on that. Solar panels too. How much energy does
it take to make the glass or plastic or whatever is used in the first
place?"Well, Diligent Dave, the studies are out there that will
answer these questions for you. You do not have to remain ignorant.
Wind and solar provide electricity. Modern battery technology won't allow
you to go very far in electric cars or airplanes or haul much freight on
electric trains, boats, or trucks. Transportation requires petroleum-like fuels
that would be provided by this oil sands project. The alternative, biofuels,
would require far more water to grow and process the biofuel crops.
There really should be no place on earth for this "bottom of the barrel"
approach to fossil fuel extraction. Nothing you could imagine is
more dirty, more energy intensive or environmentally destructive that the mining
and refining of this gunk.Drill gas and oil wells to your hearts
content. Nothing I have seen is more shameful than the tar sands operations.
This oil stuff is dirty, contaminating and ugly. Nuclear energy is the cleanest
way to get power. So, let’s get back to mining uranium. No environmental
contamination there, right?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments