Feel free to "bait" all you want; call them what you want. Just accept that it makes your arguments look a little pathetic when they contain no tar.

Of course, hypocrites like you will always gloss over facts that don't suit your view. In my opinion, it is completely hypocritical to complain about the environmental impact of one thing while taking numerous flights to and from Europe each year and ordering items from Europe to be shipped to you in Canada due to a lack of said products in the vicinity of where you live. I know you won't accept this.

Largely because of the extra environmental problems associated with coal. These include sulphur dioxide/sulphate emissions, NOx, NHMC, Hg, CO and dioxin emissions, all of which are directly or indirectly damaging to public health and some of which contribute very significantly to photochemical smog (and of course to London smog).

BTW I dispute that EROEI for coal is better than wind, can you provide a citation for that claim? Also oilsands are not similar to biofuels (although some biofuels turn out to be bad choices as well).

http://www.energybulletin.net/53475

You seem to be confusing arguing about the correct name of something as actually having any relevence to the science that is known about that thing?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and the opposite applies to the athabasca oil sands. (aka the athabasca tar sands)

Obviously there is a place for personal responsibility, and we all have an impact on the environment to some extent, but personally I think if you have to divert the argument away from a discussion about government level discussions regarding a decision that could result in an environmental impact that completely dwarfs any one individuals personal impact, and try to move the discussion on to the impact of individuals choices to fly here and there, then I suspect its a sign that you know you dont have a leg to stand on with the original topic

I thought the original topic was about muzzling scientists. I have made no comment about that, nor, actually, have I made any comment about the environmental impact of the oilsands.

The poster that I have been debating with constantly refers to me by a name that has little bearing on the issues in dispute. As I have said repeatedly, I do not work in the oil and gas sector, nor do any people that I know on a personal, non work related basis. The fact that the oil and gas sector exists, anywhere in the world, is as relevant to my life as it is to every other person on this planet.

However, when posters wish to imply that I am a mouth piece for the oil and gas industry it must be fair to allow me to refute this. In addition, if a poster wishes to cast aspersions on my environmental opinions (correctly or incorrectly; directly or indirectly) surely it is also fair to allow me to focus on theirs, is it not?

So basically you are not discussing the thread topic I know, its BE, its expected...

I agree, the name thing and the personal attacks, we could all do without it.

I tried to debate with the professor on something thread related but he chose not to.

As you are fully aware, I believe name calling is for the playground and I try to avoid it. As for the personal attacks, I asked a question and I was called a name. In fact, it was implied that baiting me was "irresistable". I responded. I do not believe that either side was particularly nasty or vicious. I will now leave the thread for others to continue

Pressumably there are different ways of calculating the EROEI for each fuel and the methodology can be determined by different authors to derive different answers. Each author will claim theirs is correct.

Obviously there are issues with coal - and the various emissions can pressumably be reduced by additional equipment which adds to the cost and introducing parasitic power demand reducing the EROEI.

Hydro is usually considered to have the best EROEI but this energy source also degrades the environment, displaces people and has significant clean up costs probably not included in the EROEI.

Personally I'm fairly ambivalent towards the oil sands. In an ideal world it would be left alone but the demand for the product is there so it is up to consumers in the end. The reality is the fuel source is there and it can be extracted profitably even if the EROEI is relatively low. The money put in by all of the major oil companies and the clear intention they have to spend much more shouldn't leave any room for doubt that it will happen.

Sure. The table I linked to gives the average EROEI reported by all the studies the author could find, 108 studies for wind and 11 for coal for example. The numbers are given in the last column.

I'll give you a quote from the Austrian article the Editha cited....

"Die Treibstoffe aus Ölsanden und Ölschiefern würden als "absolut klimaschädlich" gelten, betonte Berlakovich. Dies seien "Energieformen von gestern, wir brauchen umweltfreundliche für morgen", es brauche aber mehr "Triple-E: Erneuerbare Energien, Energieeffizienz und Energiesparen", bekräftigte der Umweltminister erneut."

"Fuel from oilsands and shales count as absolutely damaging to the climate, said Berlakovich. These are 'yesterday's forms of energy, we need environmentally friendly fuels for tomorrow', what is needed even more are the 'triple E's, Renewable Energy, Energy efficiency and Energy saving' repeated the Minister for the Environment."

Well said.

Could you please provide me with an example of "environmentally friendly fuels". I appreciate that some are less environmentally friendly than others.

Which form of triple E fuels are there that could provide, for example, the energy needs of England?

Electricity from renewable sources comes to mind, or stuff like hydrogen powered fuel cells, etc. Of course there are impacts in the way such devices are produced and packaged, but you have to start somewhere.

The point is not to go to 100% of these right now, but if we remain dependent on dirty fuels then there will be no scaling up of cleaner alternatives.

Is this really in need of explanation? it seems obvious to me...

In the short term if we must dramatically reduce greenhouse emmission then nuclear technology would fill the void, although obviously not without a down side in terms of economics of decommissioning plants and dealing with waste management. On the other hand we can carry on as we are and not worry about planning too far into the future.

All very good but it does appear to align with German economic and industrial strengths. Coincidence?

Germany does mine rather large amounts of coal using open cast and deep mines doesn't it. How much CO2 have they already caused to be emitted and how much will they continue to emitt in the future using this fuel? Being the manufacturing and industrial powerhouse in europe presumably this isn't going to change in the foreseeable future?

Fast reactors burning nuclear waste. It's been estimated that the UK has enough fuel for these to satisfy energy needs for the next 500 years.

Must be. The person quoted is Austrian, as well as being a member of the distinctly right-of-centre OVP, the Austrian Peoples Party.

In Germany, read up on the current policies of "die Energiewende", which roughly translates as "The Energy U-turn".

So what, for example, are the renewable sources that could provide sufficient electricity for the needs of the English?

I appreciate that. How you do suggest the transition occurs?

So how do you deal with waste management?

Look, I am all for clean, renewable energy that doesn't kill polar bears, scar the landscape and ensure that we can keep living in our air conditioned huge houses, drive our huge cars and travel huge distances by flying.

The reality is that there is little, currently, that can be done to wean the entire world from consuming fossil fuels. If there was, we would be doing it. I appreciate that big oil has some governments in its pocket. I don't accept that the technology exists to allow most of the world to rely upon the energy you are talking about. Hydro may be an option in some locations, it is not an option everywhere; wind may be an option in some location, it is not an option everywhere; solar may be an option in some locations, it is not an option everywhere.

I just wish the environmentalists would accept this and accept that the rhetoric they put forward about everyone being able to live as they currently do with minimal impact to the environment if not for the big, bad oil barons is complete tosh.

I have young children. I don't want to see the world devastated and the lives of them and their children, grandchildren to be sacrificed. But I am also a realist. If there were cost effective steps that people could take, I believe that they would be taking them. If there were ways for me to live off grid in an eco friendly way, I would be doing it. The truth is that such utopia is not a reality.

Will you accept such a plant just down the road from your property in England?