Sentences with phrase «burning tar sand»

Just how bad are the emissions from burning tar sand oil?

Of course, Keystone XL might not be used at full capacity at all times and industry estimates of the greenhouse gases associated with producing and burning tar sands oil can be as low as 482 kilograms per barrel, depending on whether the tar sands were mined or not.

My review of the Fort McMurray fires, asking what happens if they burn the tar sands operations — follows that.

Third, stack up the impacts of the climate disruption that burning tar sands oil leads to.

«In this context and with these terrible imperatives,» Ward said, «my actions of walking across a field and cutting a fence chain are inconsequential and excusable compared to the ghastly effect of continuing to burn tar sands oil.»

If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome [the runaway greenhouse] is a dead certainty».

Again, it's not just that burning tar sands oil produces a lot of emissions; it's that long - term capital investments like Keystone (and coal plants, and coal export facilities) «lock in» those dangerous emissions for decades and make catastrophic climate disruption inevitable.

James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist, has said this about the Keystone pipeline: that if the pipeline goes through and we burn tar sands in Canada, it's «game over» for the planet.

Not exact matches

The boom in unconventional fuels — such as bitumen extracted from Alberta's tar sands and oil extracted from North Dakota's Bakken shale formation by hydraulic fracturing («fracking»)-- has swelled global reserves even as climate scientists issue ever - sterner warnings that burning more than a small fraction of these reserves would be suicidal.

All things considered, the energy you can get from burning a barrel of tar sands oil only

According to DeSmogBlog, the emissions difference between burning oil from conventional wells and tar sands is about the same as trading in your Honda Accord for a Chevy Suburban.

The will to overlook accelerated climate change caused by the extraction of tar sands oil, the destruction of the carbon sink that is / was the boreal forest, and the continued burning of fossil fuels to power trips to the corner store for a creamy, etc..

Also: the Canadian super fire at Fort McMurray: can the tar sands burn?

Here is a new question for you: can the tar sands operations burn, and what happens if they do?

She was horrified about the potential blow up of the storage facilities and the toxic cloud if the tar sands burned for months etc, etc..

We'll talk about the the climate connection, and ask the question: «can the tar sands burn?»

Although if every last drop of tar sand oil is burned I suspect we are looking at more than 10 degrees celsius easily enough.

This is a practical impossibility due to increased amounts of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere from the growing global production and burning of coal, tar / oil sands, heavy oil and bitumen.

The statement estimates, and then dismisses, the pipeline's massive carbon footprint and other environmental impacts, because, it asserts, the mining and burning of the tar sands is unstoppable.

Not only does Q fail to consider the carbon to be released by burning coal but he also totally ignores the tar sands, oil shales, and heavy oils that are being targeted to supplement remaining oil supplies.

The landmark decision, affirming a challenge brought by the Sierra Club and allies at Earthjustice, WildEarth Guardians, and High Country Conservation Advocates, could have far - reaching implications for protecting our climate from the threat of mining and burning of coal, natural gas, tar sands, and other fossil fuels.

We can not burn all of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands) and release the CO2 into the air without creating a different planet.

People are no longer ignorantly burning dirty fuels, and are questioning the wisdom of future dirty sources like tar sands while looking seriously at alternatives.

Without fairly immediate action, someone (either the U.S. or China) is going to be burning a lot of tar sands oil in the next 20 years.

But tar sands are between 12 and 20 percent more carbon intensive than even regular oil, especially when burning of the, worse than coal, coke bi-product is taken into account.

Figure 1 helps make clear why the tar sands and other unconventional fossil fuels ought not to be developed and burned.

Now, I'll illustrate the emissions scenario from potential burning of tar sands oil and other unconventional fossil fuels (UFF) as contrasted with conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal).

Burning a gallon of gas from tar sands releases as much as 37 percent more carbon pollution than burning a gallon of gas from conventionBurning a gallon of gas from tar sands releases as much as 37 percent more carbon pollution than burning a gallon of gas from conventionburning a gallon of gas from conventional oil.

That means that the environmental benefit of raising fuel efficiency from 20 to 27 MPG would be wiped out if that vehicle is now burning oil from tar sands.

He said: «If we mean to burn all the coal and any appreciable percentage of the tar sands, or other unconventional oil and gas then we're cooked.

It is difficult to see how developing, transporting, and refining the tar sands would be anywhere near the most economical (let alone environmentally acceptable) option for burning a strictly limited quantity of fossil fuel while expediting a phase - out.

According to research, oil burned from the tar sands emits significantly more carbon than conventional oil.

Of course even if CSS worked perfectly at the tar sands without evaporating profitability, it would do nothing about the enormous downstream emissions from burning all that refined oil in cars — four times the production emissions.

(1) Putting aside actual so - called fossil carbon (i.e. shales, coal, oil, gas tar sands) which are all relatively unreactive geologically overall (unless those pesky humans dig them up and burn them) there are in fact (today) substantial pools of potentially more reactive «fixed» carbon other than the active biosphere's biomass.

All I counted, in short, was the CO2 that will be directly released by burning the oil plus the emissions required to extract and process the oil from the tar sands deposits.

The new impact statement says that extracting, shipping, refining and burning oil from the tar sands produces more climate - altering greenhouse gases than most conventional oil, but less than many of the project's critics claim.

I concluded that the world would recognize that it had to phase out coal without burning it all, and not develop unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands.

In - situ partial combustion of Canadian tar sands allows the energy return on energy invested to be less than unity because it can be burned by pumping oxygen to the oil.