Why is the climate changing. (Page 70)
zeffur: Clean coal (or more accurately scrubbed combustion exhaust) is a good idea--although, I haven't seen it scaled up to make any difference, yet.
kittybobo34: Then we have to figure out what to do with all the coal slag waste and the scrubbed carbon
zeffur: The landfill would have to be studied to determine whether or not that would be a problem, Gail.. in many areas that isn't a problem as they are sufficiently remote to humans & water will be purified before it comes to them or is dumped into other water ways or the ocean.
kittybobo34: There aren't many places where there isn't someone siphoning off water from a well. The aquifers underground are generally as large as 2 or 3 states. This was one of the big reasons there was so much fuss about the pipe line installation out west, a leak had the potential to damage the aquifers of most of the midwest.
zeffur: People drill wells deep enough until they reach potable water. Some areas are deeper than others.
The aquifers that you refer to aren't where the large coal deposits are located. Coal residues can be redeposited where the coal was extracted over a large area to reduce the concentration of toxic agents.
kittybobo34: Ironic, Just after we chatted above, one of the pipelines broke in the Dakotas, spilling several 1000 gallons of chemically treated oil. The company responsible has 200 workers trying to clean it up before it hits the aquifer.
zeffur: The density of crude oil is less than water.. which means it floats on water--which means it is relatively easy to clean up--especially on land--which is what they appeared to have done with the pipeline spills that kittybobo34 referred to. There is no indication in that article that the oil entered the aquifer--just a local wetland area that isn't used by people.
kittybobo34: I remember a seminar several years about where they were talking about the damage those chemicals can cause because they go deep and keep going deep, you can't dig them out.
zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Zeff,, the oil is cleanable, but the chemicals they put into it so it flows through the line are extremely toxic, and quickly penetrate into the earth.."
Neither of the urls that you provided list any toxic agents that are mixed with piped oil from tar sand deposits or left behind after such oil spills. I also don't think they send tar sands through the pipe lines. The tar sands are processed to eliminate the sand & water to make crude oil from tar sand deposits. The oil is then piped to refineries to be refined into various petrochemical products.
re: "kittybobo34: I remember a seminar several years about where they were talking about the damage those chemicals can cause because they go deep and keep going deep, you can't dig them out."
"When tar sands oil spills, the diluent evaporates pretty quickly — causing toxic, short-term air pollution — and leaves the heavy bitumen behind, which sinks.
“Once bitumen sinks to the bottom of a lake or wetland, it is much more problematic to clean up than conventional oil, which floats nicely and can be skimmed off the surface,” Diane Orihel, a professor in aquatic ecotoxicology at Queen’s University, told VICE News."
Most of the oil is recovered. There are obviously VOCs that can escape into the atmosphere--but they don't end up in the water as far as I know. As for the oil most of it can be recovered if the clean up is done properly. How much bitumen is not recovered is obviously not stated in your articles, but, it seems like it is more of a problem to clean up when it is at the bottom of bodies of water--not that there was any evidence of that in the spills that you cited.
ghostgeek: We hear so much nowadays about all the carbon that the human race has pumped into the atmosphere, but what if it had never happened? What if carbon dioxide levels were way down? Would we be feeling happy?
ghostgeek: Just seen this:
Mankind is pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that it could postpone the next ice age by more than 100,000 years, according to new research which finds humans are having a “mind-boggling” impact on the Earth.
[ https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-100000-years-a6810436.html ]
They write that as though it's a bad thing to postpone an ice age.
kittybobo34: On postponing the ice age, can't complain, but we are going way past just postponement, and right into hothouse earth. Just imagine steping outside to your average 130 degree day, not a single plant left alive except perhaps cacti . Oceans stagnant pools of algae. It happened once before, That is where we are heading if we don't curb this.
Sir Loin: No postponing climatic shifts Ghost. Looks like the next ice age will be a Southern Hemisphere one with a surge in stratospheric temperatures pushing Antarctic weather up to Aussie. Hopefully it'll arrive in time to help put the bushfires out