And yes, there's a tweet for that too

One comment I read in another forum, "The man apparently saw that it was good for our economy so let's go damnit."

I know it's LOLDaddy, but how exactly is an oil pipeline good for the environment?

Well, before Clovis gets here...

The argument is that per unit of oil extracted there is a lower environmental impact than the alternative of trucking and rail. That's probably true, though I don't know that for sure. But, it ignores whether or not more oil is extracted because it ultimately ends up being easier and less expensive to transport.

Well the air is too clean, as we all know, so more burnt fossil fuels means healthier air!

This is exactly right. Until we can replace fossil fuel, pipelines are by far the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport product.

That being said TransCanada should be investigated intensely to see if thier cathodic protection and spill detection systems were operating and being monitored. This kind of spill pisses me off so much because it is preventable. If they were asleep at the wheel they should be fined into the stone age or even face criminal charges.

This is the dumbest fallacy in the debate. The product is produced and transported some way. It's completely bizzare for the anti-pipeline lobby to think stopping pipelines stops extraction. It's just fantasy. Nothing more.

To be fair, solar is not totally benign. There has not been much research yet into the solar farms but we do know, for example, they increase bird mortality substantially, as many birds mistake the panel fields for waterbodies.

My province is just starting to write regulations around solar. My company is doing some really neat research into migratory bird patterns and how they interact with these fields. Hopefully spacing and lighting regulations will result.

That being said, solar is obviously far superior to fossil fuels. I'm proud of my provincial government for pushing hard to develop solar here. We have seen a bit of a gold rush around it which is pretty cool.

I'd love to see a time when solar overtakes oil and gas.

Do you know if the concern over birds is as overblown as the bird-concerns with wind in that the bird deaths caused by wind turbines was like several orders of magnitude lower than skyscrapers and cats?

Wat?

I think you’re missing the story on this one.

Once constructed and most costs are sunken it's much cheaper per unit of oil transported which means cheaper refined products which means more consumption and thus extraction.

50 times as many birds are killed by fossil fuel electrical generation as wind and solar combined. And almost none of that is solar and none are from photovoltaic, but rather thermal generators. And that doesn't include any birds killed by extraction or emissions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkpr...d2a939bbb/amp/

I don't understand how mistaking a solar field for a lake leads to bird deaths. Confused bird lands on solar panel, says "Hey, this isn't water!", then... dies?

This is just not correct. Thermal is worse but PV clearly leads to higher bird mortality as birds confuse the field with waterbodies.

Obviously this is a minor issue compared to global warming and air pollution. I just wanted the point out more work is needed on solar to understand its effect on the environment.

They die of impact trauma. This is especially common in poor weather events.

The theoretical effect kills far fewer birds than just the electrical generation of power from alternatives so it's a dumb debate. I suspect oil and gas journals and perhaps the newspapers near massive oil and gas extraction centers like to ruminate on the hazards of solar.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.des...m/amp/88868372 (newspaper near solar power center)

This has come up a few times, but you keep ignoring this obvious argument. I expect you believe in the fundamental principles of market economics?

What point were you trying to make?

Solar being cheaper and more efficient? We agree.

Converting entire countries our size to solar would be massively expensive to the point you would have to convince tax payers to foot the bill for at least one generation.

That seems kinda dubious to me. Birds don't cannonball into lakes, they glide in slowly.

Also lol anecdote sample size, I live on a lake with a solar field on the other side. All the ducks and geese that come in each night seem to end up in the right place, despite my deepest wishes for massive duck apocalypse.

That's not what I was talking about at all. I was in conversation with Clovis and you have to go back about 15 posts to get the context.

Solar, in particular, is irrelevant. Lower costs for oil transportation along with competition means lower costs for refined products which means more consumption. Fewer pipelines could mean more solar or nuclear or wind or hydro or just more conservation.

If you want a duckapalypse you should build a conventional fossil fuel power plant with its cooling tower for the ducks to fly over and get killed by.

I know I'm repeating myself, but just a reminder that bird deaths is not even close to an argument for fossil fuels vs. wind, let alone solar. It's an argument vs. conservation and a consideration when siting a solar or wind farm and that's all.

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/26...r-bird-deaths/

Seems like a lot of work. I was thinking more along the lines of killing a few and leaving their bodies on pikes as a warning to the others.

It’s not dubious. It’s fact. It’s documented extensively in the literature. We see it in our data. We even go so far as to do mortality blind runs to ensure the data is solid.

Again it’s not to point out that solar is bad. It’s obviously far superior to oil and gas in terms of impact on the environment.

Microbes, I hope you are kidding with the silly argument that oil and gas companies are pushing the bird research. It’s being driven by biologists some of whom work for government and some consulting, like my firm.

It’s an attempt to better understand a poorly understood interaction so regulations can be put in place to limit lighting and spacing.

While this is all true it’s a bizzare argument predicated in a position literally nobody is taking. It’s equivalent to Roy Moore defenders saying what about Clinton.

Regulations don’t exist yet for solar in much of Canada because the technology is new. We need to understand the interaction.

It’s a given that fossil fuel extraction is worse for birds. So what? That is not how science or regulation work. The goal is to make regulations which limit all negative interactions. Not just those that are the worst on some list.

It is looking like spacing requirements and lighting limitations may reduce bird mortality. Should I be saying, so what more die because of oil and gas?