Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "How Oil Propaganda Sneaks Into TV Shows | Climate Town" video.

You're being a little disingenuous with the California power production point. California is the largest electrical importer in the US at something like a third of total demand being imported. And that is inclusive from coal fired plants in Utah and Nevada, but there is also BC and Washington hydro. But presenting the California generation numbers as what fuels their grid is misleading. I say this not because I don't support renewables but so you can craft stronger arguments. Edited* based on correction below, however, it is my understanding that there is somewhat of a shell game as well where Wyoming will sell coal fired power to western states who at the same time sell renewables, like hydro from the Columbia River, to California. So while California is not importing the coal power, it is directly causing the draw on the electrical system which leads to coal generation occuring
10
Since most of your viewership is already pro wind, it would be awesome if you did a deep dig on Biofuels. Corn ethanol, and mainly Biodiesel. Discuss how much soy is grown for a truely marginal amount of our energy, the land use and distruption and impact on human food, the impact on Palm oil. Palm oil, unfortunately, is the most land efficient source of vegetable oil, which is why it's so heavily used. And half of it goes to Biodiesel in Indonesia. I think this is the most disingenuously greenwashed industry in the world.
5
@TheChrisLeone the issue with this counter argument is that it doesn't address the actual concern. People upset about bird deaths are usually referencing raptors or cranes or geese, not small song birds. Turbines can and shoot be sited and built to minimize these issues. But I don't think we should minimize the issue by comparing pigeons to golden eagles.
5
@BL3446 flaring is very annoying.
3
@pocpic well my statement isn't untrue, you're reply is just an example of using it in some form. But you would have to build the infrastructure to do this, I don't know if either term easily should be applied here; the reason shale oil is able to find a higher price internationally is how rich it is in Petro feed stocks. And while gasoline is light, at least a third the barrel is larger than gasoline, and diesel and above is certainly not widely cracked..
3
@malicious-fisheeves I would push back on the Cats argument as people generally care more about eagles or herons than pigeons. Wind turbines are great, and can be built to minimize the issue, but I don't think the Cats Kill Birds argument is in any better faith than the Wind Turbines Kill Birds argument often is.
3
Also, One caveat I want to call out, and a reason I support Canada Oil sands above other oil, is that a barrel of Gasoline and a barrel of Diesel and a barrel of lubricant are by and large not interchangeable products. They all come from a barrel of oil, but they are different fractions of that barrel. A little under 10% of a barrel is going to be usable in producing Lubricant. So if 10 bbl/s of lubricants are needed, 100 bbls of oil were needed, even if the other components were used for something else. Unless of course, it's from the Oil Sands, where you could turn an entire barrel of bitumen into Lubricant, or Diesel, or gasoline.
3
@2MinuteHockey I think we should be skeptical of using Chinese poor practices as an argument against technology. And since something like 60% of global concrete production is in China that holds on both points. But yes, I definitely think there are points against hydro, particularly on the Columbia River, in terms of fish impacts.
3
@TheGIGACapitalist so an important thing to understand is that while plastic and gasoline are both oil products, they are not interchangeable; they come from different fractions of the barrel. Plastic is made from the lightest portions of hydrocarbons, gasoline is larger. So to an extent, you could view gasoline as a waste product of petrochemicals, which has to be disposed of or used in some form.
2
@caveman314 I know. In another comment I was explicit about this when saying Oil Sands bitumen should be preferred to light oils because it can be cracked to make your preferred product, whether it's jet fuel or diesel or lubricant. But refineries don't do this all the time. Certain refineries have cracking units. Most are just a distillation tower, particularly internationally. Again you could convert to shorter hydrocarbons with the rest of the barrel, but it does add cost, which is why US shale oil which is, in some cases, almost half petrochemical feed stocks is sold internationally for a higher price.
2
@sorejack I have seen technology to use wet CNG in the fracking pumps. That would be rather game changing imo. Thought?
2
@caveman314 or maybe we could use less plastic. But we really aren't disagreeing here. I've already said we could the infrastructure.
2
One caveat I want to call out, and a reason I support Canada Oil sands above other oil, is that a barrel of Gasoline and a barrel of Diesel and a barrel of lubricant are by and large not interchangeable products. They all come from a barrel of oil, but they are different fractions of that barrel. A little under 10% of a barrel is going to be usable in producing Lubricant. So if 10 bbl/s of lubricants are needed, 100 bbls of oil were needed, even if the other components were used for something else. Unless of course, it's from the Oil Sands, where you could turn an entire barrel of bitumen into Lubricant, or Diesel, or gasoline.
2
@BS-vm5bt I have no issue with nuclear, beyond the fact it isn't really a solution for developing countries who also need power but we aren't going to leave alone with nuclear reactors. I think the cost aspect, and the rapidly falling cost of solar, is the actual problem. In theory nuclear could be built out extensively, but in reality solar is.
2
@krakenengineer I support wind, although in the long term Solar will dominate, and I don't think aesthetics should rule energy policy, but I think this kind of retort is disingenuous. I've never seen a coal mine, I've seen many many wind turbines. Contrasting a visual blight that takes place over a square Km with one that's built over hundreds of kilometers is hardly good faith. Id suggest focusing on real advantages.
2
@economicprisoner this was of course meant to be punitive to the wind industry. But it should be understood the reason for this is that wind turbine construction was almost entirely unrestricted in Alberta, whereas the coal mine and oil resources are owned by the Province and only developed at the Province's decision. The reason wind was being built so rapidly in Alberta to begin with is that it was generally the easiest jurisdiction in North America to build due to that lack of regulation, and obviously no other province or state allowed such unregulated construction.
2
@economicprisoner we've actually run into eachother before on What the Hell Canada, but it seems my reply disappeared. But the issue with this is that royalties only really work when you have an export that can be produced cheaper than the industry average. If it isn't an export, it basically just becomes a sales tax. If it isn't cheaper than average, it reduces development. Wyoming is setting a tax on wind, which is probably meant to be punitive, but may work anyway because it's high grade wind is well timed and oriented to export to California. Alberta would need export capacity for this to work. Otherwise you're just pushing up the cost of energy..
2
You're being a little disingenuous with the California power production point. California is the largest electrical importer in the US at something like a third of total demand being imported. And that's heavily from coal fired plants in Wyoming and Nevada, but there is also BC and Washington hydro. But presenting the California generation numbers as what fuels their grid is misleading. I say this not because I don't support renewables but so you can craft stronger arguments.
1
@caffetiel I don't understand your point. But I think it's reasonable for people to kill about birds on the endangered species list being killed or arguing Altamont pass it a terribly planned region. We should be addressing these things while building new wind farms.
1
@caffetiel I definitely didn't say any of that. My point was that these are largely different sets of issues, and that calling it all birds is like saying we shouldn't worry about Orangutans dying for palm oil because cats kill so many mice.
1
@noconsent not intentionally, I changed my comment, but the point I would stay still stands that discussing Californian power generation as though it is power consumption is a poorly informed approach.
1
@2MinuteHockey Yes I agree with not buying Chinese.
1
@2MinuteHockey I mean I'm not against all concrete, and I think it's wrong to say that the illegal market is because there just isn't enough sand instead of the fact unregulated sand is cheaper. But I would frequently be against new dams yes. In terms of Solar panels, we need to develop domestic supply chains. But I'm not going to be against solar in the hopes that nuclear or geothermal, technologies that have existed for half a century, and were better than the alternative for half a century, will suddenly be built out. Should we build them? Yes. But I'm not holding my breath.
1
@lumpy-porridge the argument here isn't that a single gas turbine isn't loaded, but that those people have never been within ear shot because so few are needed relative to wind turbines.
1
@miraelgato392 okay well as much as I love a Kiwi I wasn't talking about islands which didn't have mammals until a hundred years ago. Lots of Polynesian islands shouldn't have cats. But you aren't going to achieve an eradication of the common house cat from North America.
1
@miraelgato392 if you're from New Zealand, or even Australia, I can agree with that. If you're from the Americas or Eurasia, I think it's neither a necessity nor a reasonable solution.
1