Trump signs orders advancing pipelines.

[Okjoek]

https://www.rt.com/usa/374942-trump-dakota-keystone-approval/

 

Not entirely surprised, but still deeply frustrated. This is one of the numerous reasons I wasn't going to vote for the guy. I had the feeling he was just sort of a different take on that corporate friendly theme which is why I hate it because if you let government be too weak the businesses can put their tentacles in and manipulate said government to push through things that can be harmful to the populous they're supposed to protect. Cause in the end if you put the market in control they're not designed to be responsible for anything but their own bottom lines.

 

I mean sure maybe you'll have more jobs in oil, but.

1. at what cost to these people's health who I truly believe they have reason for concern at the hands of corporations whom it's not their job to care,

2. We should ideally be working more towards nuclear/ other alternative cleaner energies like if I'm not mistaken China is striving for.

 

Sorry if it's not tech related entirely even though I am calling for the nuclear tech this is infact just something political I felt like posting an opinion about here and after Obama finally does something I'm happy for and relieved for the sake of those vets who were helping the cause last year as I sat reading about it in comfort, it now would appear to be butchered.

[CtrlAltELITE]

You can't stop progress. Honestly my biggest take from this is losing a bit of respect for that Saunders guy based on this quote "We can't afford to build new pipelines that lock us into burning more fossil fuels. I will do everything I can to stop Keystone XL and DAPL.". These pipelines are about so much more that just keeping the lights on, not only are petrochemicals a necessity to most modern industry, including the production and installation of environmentally friendly power generation. The biggest gain from these internal pipelines is increased efficiency of transmission from American owned oil fields reducing that amount of oil needing to be imported. This will have net environmental and geopolitical gains for America in the long run. I would honestly think that a man who has been in politics as long as Saunders would understand this. Instead he buys into the environmentalist mantra that any small sacrifice is unacceptable regardless of the gains which could be made from it in the long run.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

Can nuclear power all of our cars? No? Then we still need oil.

we also use oil for fertilizer, polymers, medicine and a whole bunch of other shit not including all the general uses I mentioned(i.e polymer in computers guns cars and etc).

and would Hillary be any better for nuclear?

no.

[Real_PhillBert]

Good. Now maybe those "protesters" who have been wreaking havoc can finally go home. Even the local Native Americans have asked them to GTFO. 

[Okjoek]

I'm not saying we should just stop using fossil fuels, and I kind of agree with what you said about sanders quote. I simply think if we don't diversify we're putting ourselves at great risk. Basing your entire civilization on one resource is not wise. Infact I would prefer not to switch to an electric car. In their current state I don't feel they're a great investment nor environmentally friendly.

 

I didn't say anything about Hillary. I'd prefer never to hear her name again.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

9 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Good. Now maybe those "protesters" who have been wreaking havoc can finally go home. Even the local Native Americans have asked them to GTFO. 

If anything this hysteria that will follow will fuel (lol) them even more.

[MrDynamicMan]

35 minutes ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

Can nuclear power all of our cars? No? Then we still need oil.

we also use oil for fertilizer, polymers, medicine and a whole bunch of other shit not including all the general uses I mentioned(i.e polymer in computers guns cars and etc).

and would Hillary be any better for nuclear?

no.

Lets have this conversation in 150 years when theres no oil left and no adaptations where implemented beforehand.

[Okjoek]

I'm getting too distracted from the energy aspect, but what I was really trying to focus on was that these people don't want this pipe built near their source of drinking water and I think these pipeline companies should be made to respect that if possible while I would also like to try to speak for progress and the future.

 

Even a google search can confirm to a certain degree there is a risk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

[gcubed]

4 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Lets have this conversation in 150 years when theres no oil left and no adaptations where implemented beforehand.

 

I hate to break this to you, but there will always be oil left. There will come a point in time where it won't be used as a general energy source, but that will happen long before the petroleum runs out. When we first started using oil as an energy source, it cost about the equivalent of one barrel of oil to extract, refine and ship 100 barrels. As time goes on, it becomes more and more expensive (energy wise). Currently, it takes one barrel of oil to extract, refine and ship somewhere between 45 and 55 barrels of oil. Basically it takes about twice as much energy today to produce a given amount of fuel than it did at the beginning of the last century. This ratio is only going to continue to get worse as petroleum deposits become depleted and we have to extract more difficult deposits of a lesser quality.

 

Basically, we will be extracting oil even after it is no longer a viable fuel source, simply because we use it in a lot more ways than simply burning it.

[gcubed]

4 hours ago, Okjoek said:

I'm getting too distracted from the energy aspect, but what I was really trying to focus on was that these people don't want this pipe built near their source of drinking water and I think these pipeline companies should be made to respect that if possible while I would also like to try to speak for progress and the future.

 

Even a google search can confirm to a certain degree there is a risk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

 

While I understand why the Native Americans would be upset of the prospect of an oil spill near their source of potable water, did you really invoke nuclear as a "cleaner" source of energy? If you think they are upset now, wait until you tell them you are planning on storing spent nuclear fuel rods (which are chemically toxic and still highly radioactive) near their water supply.

[stconquest]

Funny how protestors are the enemy when oil pipelines do a heck of a lot of harm to the environment.  Way to kick the little guy in the face.  =D

 

DAPL is not transporting oil to help the USA become more energy independent, they are exporting the oil and making money for ETP (Energy Transfer Partners).

 

Enbridge is part of the ETP ecosystem.  I don't know how these guys are allowed to work in the USA?  Well, I kind of do:  Massively corrupt governments.

 

 

[gcubed]

5 hours ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

Can nuclear power all of our cars? No? Then we still need oil.

we also use oil for fertilizer, polymers, medicine and a whole bunch of other shit not including all the general uses I mentioned(i.e polymer in computers guns cars and etc).

and would Hillary be any better for nuclear?

no.

 

Actually, "Yes, nuclear power can be used in automobiles."

 

In 1957 the Ford Nucleon was designed. At the time the reactors and required shielding was just to bulky to make such a car feasible. Today, technology has advanced enough where such power plants can easily be made. So why hasn't Ford dusted off their old plans and started production. Well, along with learning how to build the reactors needed we also learned a tad bit more of the dangers. Basically, there is no way to build a containment shell, that is guaranteed not to leak in the case of an accident. Imagine 240 million potential tiny chernobyls running around on the road.

 

Yes, we are smart enough to power cars this way, the question is, are we smart enough NOT to power cars this way.

 

 

[beaker]

5 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Lets have this conversation in 150 years when theres no oil left and no adaptations where implemented beforehand.

Even if there are no government subsidies for "green" energy they will still be developed.  People want it, it will happen.  My only problem is all these "green" energy programs are just not sustainable with out government money, Ontario being a big example, as well as many projects in Europe.  Alternatives for everything will happen with time.  

[dalekphalm]

23 minutes ago, gcubed said:

 

Actually, "Yes, nuclear power can be used in automobiles."

 

In 1957 the Ford Nucleon was designed. At the time the reactors and required shielding was just to bulky to make such a car feasible. Today, technology has advanced enough where such power plants can easily be made. So why hasn't Ford dusted off their old plans and started production. Well, along with learning how to build the reactors needed we also learned a tad bit more of the dangers. Basically, there is no way to build a containment shell, that is guaranteed not to leak in the case of an accident. Imagine 240 million potential tiny chernobyls running around on the road.

 

Yes, we are smart enough to power cars this way, the question is, are we smart enough NOT to power cars this way.

 

 

On top of that, there's a much easier way to have "nuclear powered" cars - Electric. Sure, manufacturing the batteries themselves can and do have environmental impacts, but assuming we can charge those batteries with Nuclear (or more traditional "green" source), cuts down on a lot of the impact.

 

Is electric a perfect solution? Nope. But Oil powered (gasoline/diesel) vehicles are certainly not perfect either.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, beaker said:

Even if there are no government subsidies for "green" energy they will still be developed.  People want it, it will happen.  My only problem is all these "green" energy programs are just not sustainable with out government money, Ontario being a big example, as well as many projects in Europe.  Alternatives for everything will happen with time.  

As much as I love pushing the development of Green energies, I have to agree with you about Ontario. The green energy programs are one of the major reasons our electricity costs have skyrocketed, despite having a massive surplus of energy (In fact, that's also one of the problems).

 

Most of Ontario energy comes from fairly green, and fairly "cheap" sources. Bruce Nuclear, Niagara Falls, other hydro electric systems, etc. The massive Wind farms might have a high cost, I'm not sure about that. But when we're selling electricity to the US for cheaper than Ontarians pay - that is not okay. Frankly, if we need to shut down excess production facilities to lower the cost, then do so. Or at least decommission them so that we can spin them back up later if needed.

[Unhelpful]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Most of Ontario energy comes from fairly green, and fairly "cheap" sources. Bruce Nuclear, Niagara Falls, other hydro electric systems, etc. The massive Wind farms might have a high cost

Post-implementation the annual cost of maintaining wind farms is relatively low. Still in the millions depending on the size, but not the same as constantly manning a hydro or nuclear plant. Wind turbines typically cap out at a factory-rated max of 3MW. Canada has a total best-case-scenario capacity of 4,200MW from wind iirc. That's nowhere near the actual instantaneous generation, of course. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, JoeyDM said:

Post-implementation the annual cost of maintaining wind farms is relatively low. Still in the millions depending on the size, but not the same as constantly manning a hydro or nuclear plant. 

Good to know - but how is their return on investment? I'm indifferent about Wind Farms. I don't hate them, nor do I love them. If they provide clean energy for a relatively cheap price, I'm game. Of course, Wind isn't constant, so there's that, but that can be solved by other more variable power stations, that can ramp up or down to meet the changing demand. Or use localized battery banks to just stow excess Wind (and solar, if also being generated) power for use when the wind drops. I assume that a power station that can change output on demand would be more economical though.

[Unhelpful]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

 

See edit for more info.

 

The ROI is very hotly debated tbh, and depends on the turbine. The issue with it is that the ROI isn't static, but you can come up with an average depending on your geographic area. At a site annual mean speed for an Enercon E82 (3MW) of 6.5m/s the annual ROI is roughly 9%. As that goes up to 7.5% that becomes roughly 14%. This doesn't account for dispatching, labor, or maintenance. Honestly? It's not that bad. The advantage of them is that they're pretty low maintenance compared to a gas turbine.

 

1. The variable power stations you're referring to are called peaking units.

 

2. Localized battery banks to hold power at renewable sites are a common thing, and I forget the proper term.

 

3. Almost every power-generator can adjust like that unless they're continuous power, short of some old diesels that are purely on or off. There's a term for power generation where the resource will be there whether you're taking advantage of it or not, but I'm completely blanking on the term. The field of employment for controlling that and making that call is called dispatching, along with the buying and selling of power.

[Okjoek]

1 hour ago, gcubed said:

 

While I understand why the Native Americans would be upset of the prospect of an oil spill near their source of potable water, did you really invoke nuclear as a "cleaner" source of energy? If you think they are upset now, wait until you tell them you are planning on storing spent nuclear fuel rods (which are chemically toxic and still highly radioactive) near their water supply.

Spent fuel rods can just be buried in the desert right? I suppose you would have to transport it there much like oil needs to be transported, but if I'm mistaken they use the rail line infrastructure or heavy vehicles to do that.

[dalekphalm]

47 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Spent fuel rods can just be buried in the desert right? I suppose you would have to transport it there much like oil needs to be transported, but if I'm mistaken they use the rail line infrastructure or heavy vehicles to do that.

It isn't quite as easy as just burying them in some random desert. You need a stable geological feature (Solid Bedrock is desirable, for example) that can ensure the waste material cannot leak into the earth or ground water. Some desert locations may well be suitable though.

 

Nuclear waste is pretty small though, in terms of physical space.

[potoooooooo]

That's pretty disgusting.

 

Literally admitting he cares more about rich people than poor people.

 

The reason the pipeline is in the vicinity of the native americans is because it was originally supposed to be near a snooty white neighborhood and they complained.

[dizmo]

Excellent news. Alberta has been suffering long enough. Bring on Keystone XL!

What worries me is that in the conditions he states that the pipeline must be manufactured in the US, and that most pipeline is manufactured abroad. Granted I don't believe much of what he says, but if that's true, I'd worry about the quality. If you haven't built something before, there's a much greater chance of error.

[Deli]

He is gonna to build the "WALL" now. Let's see when would he ban all the Muslim entering the US.

[dalekphalm]

On one hand, I'm not intrinsically or inherently opposed to Oil pipelines.

 

Does anyone have any statistics on the comparative safety of pipeline vs tanker truck, and also pipeline vs tanker ship?

 

As much as I want fossil fuels to disappear forever, we're not there yet. And as such, we should be looking at using both the safest and most effective way to transport the needed fuel.

 

On the other hand, if they go back on their word on Standing Rock, I am 100% fully against that. You cannot put peoples lives (and the safety of their water supply) at risk, just for increased profit! If being safe means making expensive detours in the pipeline construction, then so be it!

 

But hey, Trump wants to disband the EPA, and I don't believe he has any plans on replacing it with something else. So environmental regulations as a whole may start to disappear in the US.

 

I invite Trump to prove me wrong, and prove that he cares about the safety and health of all Americans. I would be willing to eat my ego and admit I was wrong, if Trump turns out to be amazing.

 

But I fear that he will be amazing to a select elite few only, and I also fear that he will unleash unprecedented ecological disaster in America's own backyard, if left unchecked. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about him.

[Zyndo]

10 hours ago, Okjoek said:

1. at what cost to these people's health who I truly believe they have reason for concern at the hands of corporations whom it's not their job to care,

2. We should ideally be working more towards nuclear/ other alternative cleaner energies like if I'm not mistaken China is striving for.

1. You made this post from an electrical device. Where do you think your electricity comes from? You likely also have a car, heat in your home, and so on... where do you think this energy comes from? Its all well and good to protest dangerous practices.... but do protest it on one hand, then reap the benefits of the same things already in place elsewhere is just hypocritical.

2. Yes, we should be; and we are. everyone everywhere in the world is looking for alternatives to fossil fuels. the problem is its not to the point yet where it is practical to make use of it. There is no conspiracy. the big oil companies aren't scared of losing their stranglehold on the oil because they're also the ones fueling most of the research into energy advancements and they're the ones who are going to come out on top with these advances and they will still be in control of the worlds energy. These businesses are in the business of making money, and when it because feasible to switch their goods from a non-renewable source of energy to a renewable one... they will do so, and they will stay rich. In the meantime, the world needs its energy; you need your energy.

 

The only people who get to say "pipelines are bad and you can't use them" or "fossil fuels are bad and you can't use them"  are the ones who consume absolutely no electricity or are actually self sustained somehow(or are truly willing to have their energy served to them on a circumstantial basis). Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc.... all those renewable sources of energy have the problem that their sources come and go... the sun can go down (or be covered by clouds) the wind can subside, the water can dry up, etc. Even nuclear has hazardous drawbacks to it no more/less severe than our current sources.

 

 

You can have whatever opinion you want on the matter, I really don't care. Just be realistic about it. Don't be a hypocrite. Right now, in order to serve hundreds of milions of people with stable on-demand energy, our level of technology requires pipelines. It is slowly changing, but we're not there yet.