Keystone pipeline springs leak in South Dakota

[*bfine32*]

Sounds like we need some new pipes or we can rely on magic to get the gas in our cars and fuel in our homes.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like we need some new pipes or we can rely on magic to get the gas in our cars and fuel in our homes.

Or work on better ways to fuel our cars and homes.  That could be an answer too.

[Vas Deferens]

(11-21-2017, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like we need some new pipes or we can rely on magic to get the gas in our cars and fuel in our homes.

Sounds like we need to embrace science rather than the lobbyists telling our reps otherwise.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2017, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like we need some new pipes or we can rely on magic to get the gas in our cars and fuel in our homes.

I thought it was built in 2010.

[Millhouse]

They probably used the lowest bidders to build that part of it.

I have mixed views on the Keystone pipeline in general though. For positives, it would help get us off the middle east teet for oil while also reducing oil prices here in the states in the long term.

Obviously the negative are possible environmental impacts if more leaks occur like this.

Whether we like it or not, oil is still extremely vital to our modern society. And it will be until scientists and governments implement new technologies of where cars and planes can run off of safe clean energy sources that are not from fossil fuels. Yes there are electric cars, but that electricity to refuel the batteries has to come from either coal or nuclear plants, neither of which are good when it comes down to it.

[Benton]

(11-21-2017, 04:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: They probably used the lowest bidders to build that part of it.

I have mixed views on the Keystone pipeline in general though. For positives, it would help get us off the middle east teet for oil while also reducing oil prices here in the states in the long term.

Obviously the negative are possible environmental impacts if more leaks occur like this.

Whether we like it or not, oil is still extremely vital to our modern society. And it will be until scientists and governments implement new technologies of where cars and planes can run off of safe clean energy sources that are not from fossil fuels. Yes there are electric cars, but that electricity to refuel the batteries has to come from either coal or nuclear plants, neither of which are good when it comes down to it.

To the bold, from what I understand it's hard to get an estimate on just how much because it's all lumped together in our refineries, but it's been reported that anywhere from 30-100% of it goes out in the form of exports. If Stewie of someone with a better handle on it has any realistic, non-politicized numbers, I'd be interested in reading them. Pro-pipeline folks hang on to the story that it lowers our price; opponents say most of it ends up overseas lowering the price in other countries.

[Millhouse]

(11-21-2017, 04:20 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, from what I understand it's hard to get an estimate on just how much because it's all lumped together in our refineries, but it's been reported that anywhere from 30-100% of it goes out in the form of exports. If Stewie of someone with a better handle on it has any realistic, non-politicized numbers, I'd be interested in reading them. Pro-pipeline folks hang on to the story that it lowers our price; opponents say most of it ends up overseas lowering the price in other countries.

Yeah I dont know how much of it would actually reduce prices, no one really knows unless it is actually built to be fair. But as we have become so dependent on the Saudis and others for oil, it would be a 'good' thing to have in place for the long term. 

What I do know is that the world needs to work together and make a serious push for scientists to discover not only a new energy source, but the technologies to harness that energy into moving vehicles and our homes so we can get off of fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and whatever is not what I am talking about either because those are not the answer for cars, planes, space aircraft etc for the future. I see those as bandaids that will bridge the gap between fossil fuels and that undiscovered fuel source.

Of course this is a pipe dream (pun intended), because governments and big oil companies worldwide will try to shut this kind of progress down when it comes down to it.

[Benton]

(11-21-2017, 05:07 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah I dont know how much of it would actually reduce prices, no one really knows unless it is actually built to be fair. But as we have become so dependent on the Saudis and others for oil, it would be a 'good' thing to have in place for the long term. 

What I do know is that the world needs to work together and make a serious push for scientists to discover not only a new energy source, but the technologies to harness that energy into moving vehicles and our homes so we can get off of fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and whatever is not what I am talking about either because those are not the answer for cars, planes, space aircraft etc for the future. I see those as bandaids that will bridge the gap between fossil fuels and that undiscovered fuel source.

Of course this is a pipe dream (pun intended), because governments and big oil companies worldwide will try to shut this kind of progress down when it comes down to it.

For years I've advocated for the US government to provide a huge incentive to whatever company comes up with the technology for sustainable, cheap energy. $10 billion or something astronomical. Take the lead, own the tech and then sell if to smaller countries. Basically our approach with weaponry, but instead of blowing stuff up, we'd be selling countries their ability to be a little more independent in regards to energy. The 'bounty' sounds high, but not if you think about how much other countries would pay to control their own energy needs, and our ability to stop subsidizing oil costs.

[Brownshoe]

(11-21-2017, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like we need some new pipes or we can rely on magic to get the gas in our cars and fuel in our homes.

Some people rely on magic to cure illnesses too, but let's not talk about religion.

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2017, 05:32 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Some people rely on magic to cure illnesses too, but let's not talk about religion.

Why would we not talk about religion in the PnR thread?

[Brownshoe]

(11-21-2017, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would we not talk about religion in the PnR thread?

We would have to make another thread. This is about the Keystone pipeline in South Dakota.

[Yojimbo]

(11-21-2017, 05:07 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah I dont know how much of it would actually reduce prices, no one really knows unless it is actually built to be fair. But as we have become so dependent on the Saudis and others for oil, it would be a 'good' thing to have in place for the long term. 

What I do know is that the world needs to work together and make a serious push for scientists to discover not only a new energy source, but the technologies to harness that energy into moving vehicles and our homes so we can get off of fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and whatever is not what I am talking about either because those are not the answer for cars, planes, space aircraft etc for the future. I see those as bandaids that will bridge the gap between fossil fuels and that undiscovered fuel source.

Of course this is a pipe dream (pun intended), because governments and big oil companies worldwide will try to shut this kind of progress down when it comes down to it.

The future technology that’s going to power our vehicles and homes is electricity, that can come from wind and solar.

Air and space travel are a little tougher. I’m not sure an electric motor can generate enough thrust or maintain it long enough. Maybe still using fossil fuels for those two things and reducing its use by like 90% could be good enough.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-21-2017, 05:29 PM)Benton Wrote: For years I've advocated for the US government to provide a huge incentive to whatever company comes up with the technology for sustainable, cheap energy. $10 billion or something astronomical. 

You don't need a bounty....the patent for such technology would be worth trillions in the US alone, assuming it's close to as economical as oil.

[Dill]

(11-21-2017, 11:35 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You don't need a bounty....the patent for such technology would be worth trillions in the US alone, assuming it's close to as economical as oil.

If I were Exxon, I'd buy that patent within 24 hrs.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-21-2017, 08:35 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The future technology that’s going to power our vehicles and homes is electricity, that can come from wind and solar.

Air and space travel are a little tougher. I’m not sure an electric motor can generate enough thrust or maintain it long enough. Maybe still using fossil fuels for those two things and reducing its use by like 90% could be good enough.

The biggest thing holding back an alternate main source of power is batteries. The capacity of the batteries, the life of the batteries, the cost of the batteries, the recharging time of the batteries, the safety of the batteries, and the hazardous waste of the used batteries. None of those factors are good enough right now.

Capacity:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107455_2017-electric-cars-with-more-than-100-miles-of-range

Note that the bar set is 100 miles. Only 2 of those 7 cars that met that bar have a range of at least 200 miles. So only two electric cars (not including the $70k-130k expensive Tesla models) are even capable of making the round trip between Cincinnati and Louisville, and that's assuming you don't hit any traffic and don't mind going by the skin of your teeth on one of them.

Hell, only 4 of them are capable of theoretically making a Cincinnati/Dayton round trip, and that's only if you trust their numbers enough to have 4-5 miles left on your car's charge. (Enjoy pushing if you're that trusting.)

Life:
http://www.hybridcars.com/how-long-will-an-evs-battery-last/
The batteries are expected to last about 8 years/100,000 miles before you need to buy a new one. That doesn't mean they will keep operating at peak condition for those 8 years, no.. Nissan for instance guarantees their Leaf batteries will still hold 70% of it's original maximum after 5yrs/60,000 miles.

Of course if you live somewhere with hot weather, you're not going to have it last anywhere near that long:
http://www.hybridcars.com/nissan-leaf-owners-hope-best-fear-worst-50263/

People in Arizona/Texas/California finding their batteries dying MUCH more quickly. For instance a man in Texas lost 21.25% of his battery's max charging ability after just 14 months.

Cost:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107455_2017-electric-cars-with-more-than-100-miles-of-range

Back to this link again, electric cars that can actually get you places are simply expensive. The Chevy Bolt with it's "awe inspiring" 235 miles theoretical maximum range (assuming your battery hasn't degraded yet) costs $37.5k. You can buy a brand new Toyota Camry  for like $24k and a new Hyundai Sontata for like $22k. Even just getting a fusion adds a couple grand to the car's price, and that's not even full electric.

Of course then there's the fact that with all the electric/computer stuff in your car, you're really not capable of doing a whole lot of maintenance on your own anymore. It requires more expensive professional maintenance because you need people with the proper equipment and training that you can't get with your handy family member who enjoys working with cars, or your neighborhood small business mechanic.

(Note: The Tesla "home battery" system after install costs and all that? $7k)

Recharging Time:
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-charge-an-electric-car.htm

You have your brand new, still fully charging battery, short-ranged 125 mile electric car and you make the 120 or so round trip from Cincinnati to Dayton magically without hitting any traffic, construction, or detours. You make it home with 5 miles left to spare. Quick, how long until you can charge it up to make the trip again?

8 hours if you own a Nissan Leaf and also own a Nissan charging dock installed into your garage.

Yeah. 8 hours of charging. Really.

Safety:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-battery-fire-risk-samsung-galaxy-note-7/

Quote:Samsung Note 7 isn’t the only gadget to catch fire due to lithium-battery problems, which have afflicted everything from iPhones to Tesla cars to Boeing jetliners. Blame chemistry and the fact that the batteries we rely on for everyday life are prone to leaking and even bursting into flame if damaged, defective or exposed to excessive heat.

Nuff said there.

Hazardous Waste:
Less of an issue right now, but if everyone is going through giant car and home batteries every 5 years or so, they will start adding up something fierce.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -


Of course this is all assuming we somehow figure out a clean way to produce all the electricity needed, which is unlikely considering Americans used 385 million gallons of gas per DAY in 2015.

That's not counting the people who using heating oil for their homes. Or the energy used for electricity in homes from coal or nuclear power, etc.

There's a reason every single clean energy attempt has vastly underproduced it's targets and are constantly going out of business. The technology just isn't good enough/cost effective enough to make it feasible even on a smaller scale in freaking deserts, let alone to produce it for all of the entire country's needs including cold weather places. Enjoy producing clean energy in snow and ice.

The only way to make it even appear worthwhile is by pumping everyone full of credits, tax breaks, and govt funding, which means we're all paying heavily for it anyway, which wouldn't hold up under expansive use by everyone.

Unless you find a wayyy more efficient way to produce green energy, and a WAYYY better way to store it, it's a pipe dream to even replace 25% of fuel use with clean energy, let alone 90%.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2017, 11:50 PM)Dill Wrote: If I were Exxon, I'd buy that patent within 24 hrs.

And no one would ever see it again....

[Yojimbo]

(11-22-2017, 03:14 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The biggest thing holding back an alternate main source of power is batteries. The capacity of the batteries, the life of the batteries, the cost of the batteries, the recharging time of the batteries, the safety of the batteries, and the hazardous waste of the used batteries. None of those factors are good enough right now.

Capacity:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107455_2017-electric-cars-with-more-than-100-miles-of-range

Note that the bar set is 100 miles. Only 2 of those 7 cars that met that bar have a range of at least 200 miles. So only two electric cars (not including the $70k-130k expensive Tesla models) are even capable of making the round trip between Cincinnati and Louisville, and that's assuming you don't hit any traffic and don't mind going by the skin of your teeth on one of them.

Hell, only 4 of them are capable of theoretically making a Cincinnati/Dayton round trip, and that's only if you trust their numbers enough to have 4-5 miles left on your car's charge. (Enjoy pushing if you're that trusting.)

Life:
http://www.hybridcars.com/how-long-will-an-evs-battery-last/
The batteries are expected to last about 8 years/100,000 miles before you need to buy a new one. That doesn't mean they will keep operating at peak condition for those 8 years, no.. Nissan for instance guarantees their Leaf batteries will still hold 70% of it's original maximum after 5yrs/60,000 miles.

Of course if you live somewhere with hot weather, you're not going to have it last anywhere near that long:
http://www.hybridcars.com/nissan-leaf-owners-hope-best-fear-worst-50263/

People in Arizona/Texas/California finding their batteries dying MUCH more quickly. For instance a man in Texas lost 21.25% of his battery's max charging ability after just 14 months.

Cost:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107455_2017-electric-cars-with-more-than-100-miles-of-range

Back to this link again, electric cars that can actually get you places are simply expensive. The Chevy Bolt with it's "awe inspiring" 235 miles theoretical maximum range (assuming your battery hasn't degraded yet) costs $37.5k. You can buy a brand new Toyota Camry  for like $24k and a new Hyundai Sontata for like $22k. Even just getting a fusion adds a couple grand to the car's price, and that's not even full electric.

Of course then there's the fact that with all the electric/computer stuff in your car, you're really not capable of doing a whole lot of maintenance on your own anymore. It requires more expensive professional maintenance because you need people with the proper equipment and training that you can't get with your handy family member who enjoys working with cars, or your neighborhood small business mechanic.

(Note: The Tesla "home battery" system after install costs and all that? $7k)

Recharging Time:
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-charge-an-electric-car.htm

You have your brand new, still fully charging battery, short-ranged 125 mile electric car and you make the 120 or so round trip from Cincinnati to Dayton magically without hitting any traffic, construction, or detours. You make it home with 5 miles left to spare. Quick, how long until you can charge it up to make the trip again?

8 hours if you own a Nissan Leaf and also own a Nissan charging dock installed into your garage.

Yeah. 8 hours of charging. Really.

Safety:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-battery-fire-risk-samsung-galaxy-note-7/

Nuff said there.

Hazardous Waste:
Less of an issue right now, but if everyone is going through giant car and home batteries every 5 years or so, they will start adding up something fierce.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -


Of course this is all assuming we somehow figure out a clean way to produce all the electricity needed, which is unlikely considering Americans used 385 million gallons of gas per DAY in 2015.

That's not counting the people who using heating oil for their homes. Or the energy used for electricity in homes from coal or nuclear power, etc.

There's a reason every single clean energy attempt has vastly underproduced it's targets and are constantly going out of business. The technology just isn't good enough/cost effective enough to make it feasible even on a smaller scale in freaking deserts, let alone to produce it for all of the entire country's needs including cold weather places. Enjoy producing clean energy in snow and ice.

The only way to make it even appear worthwhile is by pumping everyone full of credits, tax breaks, and govt funding, which means we're all paying heavily for it anyway, which wouldn't hold up under expansive use by everyone.

Unless you find a wayyy more efficient way to produce green energy, and a WAYYY better way to store it, it's a pipe dream to even replace 25% of fuel use with clean energy, let alone 90%.

Considering the govt gives subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, should be pretty simple to strip those and give them to clean energy industry. You can also pay for green energy r&d by taxing polluters. Kind of like what the government is doing with cigarettes. Raise taxes to make them less desirable, use the tax revenue on smoking cessation and healthcare.

As far as battery technology, I agree it's not currently there, but it is getting better every year. Some really exciting breakthroughs on materials, charge time and charge holding happening at universities all over the country. Recycling of battery material is going to be very important to reduce the waste and need to mine new materials.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

The electric car revolution is coming and China is driving it. They are making electric cars tax-free and have upcoming laws that make gasoline/diesel powered vehicles illegal. China accounts for 1/3 of all car sales in the world (and is also the fastest growing), manufacturers will cater to that.

[Dill]

(11-22-2017, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: And no one would ever see it again....

Not until 72 trillion dollars worth of underground carbon was in the atmosphere.  Get those profits first--then the patent!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-22-2017, 11:11 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Considering the govt gives subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, should be pretty simple to strip those and give them to clean energy industry. You can also pay for green energy r&d by taxing polluters. Kind of like what the government is doing with cigarettes. Raise taxes to make them less desirable, use the tax revenue on smoking cessation and healthcare.

As far as battery technology, I agree it's not currently there, but it is getting better every year. Some really exciting breakthroughs on materials, charge time and charge holding happening at universities all over the country. Recycling of battery material is going to be very important to reduce the waste and need to mine new materials.  
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

The electric car revolution is coming and China is driving it. They are making electric cars tax-free and have upcoming laws that make gasoline/diesel powered vehicles illegal. China accounts for 1/3 of all car sales in the world (and is also the fastest growing), manufacturers will cater to that.

Saw an article related to this topic we were discussing a couple days ago, but then P&R went on that like 4-5 day break.

Tesla just finished building the world's largest lithium ion battery in South Australia as an effort to help with their blackout problems by creating more stability. It was a $50m station. The problem? Brand new, it can store enough energy to power 30,000 houses for 1 hour.

Think about that. $50m to be able to store the power to run 30,000 houses for 1 hour.... in an area of 1.7m people. Nevermind that in 5 years those batteries will likely only be able to store enough to run like 15,000 houses for 1 hour. Just a continuation of a massive waste of money.

And they still require diesel backups.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

Green energy just simply isn't efficient/affordable enough to be practical yet. What they should be focused on is how to make nuclear energy even more efficient and safe, and updating old plants. The US hasn't built a nuclear reactor since like '96, and it still produces almost 20% of the country's energy.

[Benton]

(11-27-2017, 02:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Saw an article related to this topic we were discussing a couple days ago, but then P&R went on that like 4-5 day break.

Tesla just finished building the world's largest lithium ion battery in South Australia as an effort to help with their blackout problems by creating more stability. It was a $50m station. The problem? Brand new, it can store enough energy to power 30,000 houses for 1 hour.

Think about that. $50m to be able to store the power to run 30,000 houses for 1 hour.... in an area of 1.7m people. Nevermind that in 5 years those batteries will likely only be able to store enough to run like 15,000 houses for 1 hour. Just a continuation of a massive waste of money.

And they still require diesel backups.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

Green energy just simply isn't efficient/affordable enough to be practical yet. What they should be focused on is how to make nuclear energy even more efficient and safe, and updating old plants. The US hasn't built a nuclear reactor since like '96, and it still produces almost 20% of the country's energy.

A little more on the story, which I thought was interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/07/tesla-to-build-worlds-biggest-lithium-ion-battery-in-south-australia

One thing I did notice, though, is the intent of the battery. 

Quote:“You can essentially charge up the battery packs when you have excess power when the cost of production is very low ... and then discharge it when the cost of power production is high, and this effectively lowers the average cost to the end customer,” Musk said. “It’s a fundamental efficiency improvement for the grid.”

I've done several stories with TVA, and peak power is an issue in terms of cost. Their hydroelectric dams provide a lot of electricity that's pretty cheap and clean... but it's not enough to meet demand during certain times of the year. August when air conditioners are going and tourism is peaking, December when holiday events are burning up meters. So they have to use more from their more expensive plants to keep up. TVA is a wholesaler of electricity; if they can't meet peak demand, they have to buy additional plants, which may be virtually dormant at times of the day/month.

I'm not in energy, but I would think a 'mega battery' project where storing cheaper clean energy like the Australian wind farm or TVA's hydroelectric would have some cost savings over buying a coal plant to prevent brown outs 3-6 hours a day.