The keystone XL pipeline fiasco

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,991
113
Did you see the news last week from Form Energy regarding advancement in storage capacity? This is more applicable to the expansion of a renewable based grid.




That’s pretty interesting. I think gobbling up huge amounts of real estate for renewable equipment and facilities isn’t an answer. I don’t know why we would want to grow this technology anyway when nukes provide such a clear and clean way forward. Small modular reactors and fourth generation reactors are the bridge we are looking for. Much more bang for the buck with nukes. Moreover, these batteries are only useful for renewable energy production which is not practicable for large scale use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,991
113
I agree with you on nuclear. From the advancements of thorium (which is much more stable than uranium and decomposes much quicker while also not needing a giant scale reactor) to the promise of a fusion apparatus that multiple private companies all over the world say they are close to solving. 60 minutes had a feature last year where the ceo of the fusion company said that they believe the timing has shortened from 50-100 years to 20-40 years on fusion.

That's some fun stuff to talk about.
Put superconducting into the mix and our problems are pretty much over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,724
10,194
113
Did you see the news last week from Form Energy regarding advancement in storage capacity? This is more applicable to the expansion of a renewable based grid.




I've been in retail ever since I got out of Kelley in the mid 90's and there is nothing more exciting than managing a technology growth category.

It is the secret sauce to explosive growth.

Simply by changing the technology means a revitalization of the product cycle.

From things like music (I've got Abby Road on vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD and mp3) to light bulbs (when I moved from the bullseye to GE the executive team was concerned about the life that the new technology had and I was like, this is the best thing to happen to this category since the filament, especially if big bad govt starts influencing efficiency).

Which is exactly what happened. CFL's exploded in the 00's and then leds kicked them out in the mid teens. What helped was the restriction of the incandescent which means that now halogen is the cheapest and crispiest light source.

Anyway light bulb sales boomed. So much that GE was able to sell off the lighting industry a couple of years ago after struggling to find a buyer in a dead flat business.

That's my point. Like it or not new technology is coming to replace standard gas autos. We can either lead and get rich or we can be passive and let the Asians and Germans lead.

Do we see ourselves as Tesla or GM?

We've proven with the big tech revolution of the late 90's that we still can dominate a new industry globally (and become filthy rich, ie the 13 year bull market on the back of the growth of our tech companies).

I believe the energy market as also the environmentally friendly market are potential monsters of expansive growth all because of the same trick....new technology and change.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,991
113
I've been in retail ever since I got out of Kelley in the mid 90's and there is nothing more exciting than managing a technology growth category.

It is the secret sauce to explosive growth.

Simply by changing the technology means a revitalization of the product cycle.

From things like music (I've got Abby Road on vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD and mp3) to light bulbs (when I moved from the bullseye to GE the executive team was concerned about the life that the new technology had and I was like, this is the best thing to happen to this category since the filament, especially if big bad govt starts influencing efficiency).

Which is exactly what happened. CFL's exploded in the 00's and then leds kicked them out in the mid teens. What helped was the restriction of the incandescent which means that now halogen is the cheapest and crispiest light source.

Anyway light bulb sales boomed. So much that GE was able to sell off the lighting industry a couple of years ago after struggling to find a buyer in a dead flat business.

That's my point. Like it or not new technology is coming to replace standard gas autos. We can either lead and get rich or we can be passive and let the Asians and Germans lead.

Do we see ourselves as Tesla or GM?

We've proven with the big tech revolution of the late 90's that we still can dominate a new industry globally (and become filthy rich, ie the 13 year bull market on the back of the growth of our tech companies).

I believe the energy market as also the environmentally friendly market are potential monsters of expansive growth all because of the same trick....new technology and change.
EV’s serve a purpose but I don't think they are a panacea. The most efficient way to make energy portable is with liquid or gaseous fuel, not with wires, batteries, and electrons. The technology of internal internal combustion engines isn’t static. Mobile carbon capture is a real thing.

On a side note, I don’t know why some of the worlds vehicle manufacturers are not in to hydrogen and fuel cells. That seems much more practical in the long term than EV’s. Maybe style points count.
 

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
20,962
8,390
113
I am with you, CO.H., on the underutilization of nuclear fission as a ready-to-go, safe, and green alternative.

I am a bit more skeptical of fusion. I recall being a grade schooler during the early 70s energy crisis / OPEC embargo and doing a school report on nuclear fusion. It was "25 years away". Fast forward 35 years and my daughter was doing a school report on nuclear fusion. It was still "25 years away". Now another 10 years and it is "20-40 years away"

The old joke goes that it is the technology of the future, and it always will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
14,084
5,277
113
Why is the keystone pipeline any big deal?

Putting on my conservative hat, why do you want to give away valuable American land to a foreign company so they can build a pipeline to the gulf of Mexico to make it easier to export?

It's expected to take critical tar sands oil that's used in Midwest refineries and divert it to the gulf of Mexico where it can be exported at a higher price. Not very America First.

Plus the pipeline is proposed to go through several fresh water lakes and rivers, water that we drink and farm with. Nothing more fun than having a spill in a valuable fresh water basin.

As far as jobs they were temporary and after it's finished provide barely any sustainable employment.

Plus is old tech. Like building a better pager network in 2000. If you believe oil is the future than damn, we're in for a world of hurt both from an economic and a climate perspective as it's a finite resource and that the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter ever summer (and has basically for the last 25 years). Temps are expected to hit 102 this week in Minneapolis. What are we, the new Phoenix?

Anyway I know the GAF factor on climate stuff is super low but, giving away American land to a foreign company along with it being dangerously close to drinking water (and there have already been leaks, there always are) along with it not making a dent in our employment numbers makes me wonder why the boners for it other than to try to make it a political weapon.
Because we still have an economy that runs on oil and as California is figuring out, there are some real obstacles to electric that have a pretty hefty environmental toll as well (something I know has been brought up repeatedly by posters like CoH in the past.) Those batteries require precious metals and those don't grow on trees, they have to be extracted out of the ground.

 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,562
3,842
113
I thought President Biden revoking that permit was bad policy. It’s worse that Trump screwed up and allowed Biden to do it.

screw up by Trump??

strongmen don't think of giving more power to themselves as screw ups.

that said, in a situation where a must have natural resource has a finite supply, the best thing from a nation standpoint, is to use up someone else's as much as possible first, always leaving yourself as much as possible in reserve, for when tapping the supply of others becomes more problematic.
 

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
20,962
8,390
113
Volvo is planning a 620 mile range EV, maybe more like 560 miles under "American driving conditions".

edit, autotrader article won't link, somehow

here's another:
 
Last edited:

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,724
10,194
113
Volvo is planning a 620 mile range EV, maybe more like 560 miles under "American driving conditions".

edit, autotrader article won't link, somehow

here's another:

I'm curious how the charging station behavior changes if/once EV's hit the critical mass stage in its trend curve.

Meaning what happens when we get a 600 mile or higher radius with a 20 to 30 minute recharge wait.

Do charging stations become a mecca for higher end, sit down restaurants? Will it bring more higher end business to rural towns? Will titty bars make a comeback if the lonely traveler has to take a thirty minute break? Lol

Currently Starbucks is putting in charging stations (per my Tesla friends) and that the strip mall will be their gas station.

As you know, any new (successful) business concept gives birth to many derivatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,344
1,416
113
I'm curious how the charging station behavior changes if/once EV's hit the critical mass stage in its trend curve.

Meaning what happens when we get a 600 mile or higher radius with a 20 to 30 minute recharge wait.

Do charging stations become a mecca for higher end, sit down restaurants? Will it bring more higher end business to rural towns? Will titty bars make a comeback if the lonely traveler has to take a thirty minute break? Lol

Currently Starbucks is putting in charging stations (per my Tesla friends) and that the strip mall will be their gas station.

As you know, any new (successful) business concept gives birth to many derivatives.
For urban it does make sense if the electric grid can handle it but that to me seems the bigger problem, or getting batteries so cheap you can charge a set at home while driving and switch them out? The other thing I wonder is all the basically free DC in internal combustion whereas headlights dont really cost anything or the free heat in cold climates or AC in hot.Are you going to have to start conserving all of these things? I can imagine heat and defrost sucking a lot of battery when its really cold. AC may cut mileage a bit but not much vs draining batteries. EV's were actually pretty big in early 1900's but the batteries and charging always remain a problem. I have done no great in depth research so asking questions.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,724
10,194
113
For urban it does make sense if the electric grid can handle it but that to me seems the bigger problem, or getting batteries so cheap you can charge a set at home while driving and switch them out? The other thing I wonder is all the basically free DC in internal combustion whereas headlights dont really cost anything or the free heat in cold climates or AC in hot.Are you going to have to start conserving all of these things? I can imagine heat and defrost sucking a lot of battery when its really cold. AC may cut mileage a bit but not much vs draining batteries. EV's were actually pretty big in early 1900's but the batteries and charging always remain a problem. I have done no great in depth research so asking questions.
That's a great question on extreme weather. I'd imagine just like you said that efficiencies would be greatly effected by AC, windshield wiping, defrosting, etc.

I've got to think there's a separate alternator thingy like in current cars that takes care of that but I don't enough about it to say with any confidence.

I know from my retail days that for something to hit mass it has to be a combination of utility and perceived value.

An example being organic milk. No one argues that it's better for you but it's perceived value isn't twice as expensive as regular milk so it remains kindof a niche thing.

CFL's (the squirrely looking lightbulbs) didn't explode until they made them 1. fit a standard table lamp (they used to be these mammoth things) and once the industry started printing the dollar efficiency on the packaging (the lasts 8 years and uses 1/4 of the energy = $400 in savings vs the incandescent over the life of the bulb).

Once we did that....hole lee sheeot it exploded.

Anyway, I don't know if EV's are the final answer. I personally really dig the hybrid concept but my guess is it's a bridge to a better car that, if the utility and affordability can hit the sweet spot will generate a massive revenue stream over the next ten to twenty years before the next transformation of the auto goes through the same cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and Crayfish57

Victorbmyboy

Senior
Nov 10, 2014
2,199
1,816
113
Why is the keystone pipeline any big deal?

Putting on my conservative hat, why do you want to give away valuable American land to a foreign company so they can build a pipeline to the gulf of Mexico to make it easier to export?

It's expected to take critical tar sands oil that's used in Midwest refineries and divert it to the gulf of Mexico where it can be exported at a higher price. Not very America First.

Plus the pipeline is proposed to go through several fresh water lakes and rivers, water that we drink and farm with. Nothing more fun than having a spill in a valuable fresh water basin.

As far as jobs they were temporary and after it's finished provide barely any sustainable employment.

Plus is old tech. Like building a better pager network in 2000. If you believe oil is the future than damn, we're in for a world of hurt both from an economic and a climate perspective as it's a finite resource and that the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter ever summer (and has basically for the last 25 years). Temps are expected to hit 102 this week in Minneapolis. What are we, the new Phoenix?

Anyway I know the GAF factor on climate stuff is super low but, giving away American land to a foreign company along with it being dangerously close to drinking water (and there have already been leaks, there always are) along with it not making a dent in our employment numbers makes me wonder why the boners for it other than to try to make it a political weapon.
It’s very hard on equipment. It’s very abrasive. It also doesn’t move in the pipe without mixing it with other product. Biden knew this was low hanging fruit. Makes him look good to his base and doesn’t hurt domestic production. The same with the permits. It was easy and wouldn’t affect us to bad. He won’t touch private land production. Obama did the same. The Bakken oil field almost single handed kept the economy hope going. It was a fun experience working in MonDak during that time.
 

Victorbmyboy

Senior
Nov 10, 2014
2,199
1,816
113
The oil industry no longer talks about running out of oil, thanks to companies like Schlumberger. For the foreseeable future, there are abundant quantities of oil. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, the world's total proven oil reserves are estimated to be around 1.73 trillion barrels, as of the end of 2019. However, this number is likely to rise because most of the world has yet to be explored using the latest technologies.6​
Nor are we anywhere close to peak energy. There are more than 1 trillion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide—enough to last around 150 years at current rates of production. There are 201.34 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves—enough to last at least 50 years. And there may be 3.0 trillion tons of methane hydrates, which is enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years, according to the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service.6​
These known and estimated reserves indicate that the peak in fossil fuel production is apparently a long way off in the future. However, given the current understanding of the origin of fossil fuels, it is virtually inescapable that total reserves are a finite resource. Peak oil represents a future threat, depending on how long it takes us to reach the peak, how rapidly production will decline post-peak, and whether and how fast fossil fuels can be replaced by other energy sources. For now, though, Hubbert’s peak theory does not appear to present a significant economic challenge in the near term.​

Carbon capture and carbon sequestration technologies are proving viable. I don’t think we have a lot to be concerned with. But still, nukes are the way forward.
I tell you. My time in the fracing industry was unreal. They just kept getting faster, more efficient and just overall better at light speed. Time was money in every sense. They found oil in places never imagined. They moved rigs at lightning speed. I’m still in awe at seeing so many resources brought together so fast. In every condition possible. Miss this days.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,724
10,194
113
I tell you. My time in the fracing industry was unreal. They just kept getting faster, more efficient and just overall better at light speed. Time was money in every sense. They found oil in places never imagined. They moved rigs at lightning speed. I’m still in awe at seeing so many resources brought together so fast. In every condition possible. Miss this days.
Thanks for the insights.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,994
31,170
113
Margaritaville
That’s pretty interesting. I think gobbling up huge amounts of real estate for renewable equipment and facilities isn’t an answer. I don’t know why we would want to grow this technology anyway when nukes provide such a clear and clean way forward. Small modular reactors and fourth generation reactors are the bridge we are looking for. Much more bang for the buck with nukes. Moreover, these batteries are only useful for renewable energy production which is not practicable for large scale use.
One of the few things we usually agree on is energy policy, but your continually growing disdain for renewable energy is insensible. Nukes are the answer now. But nukes are not renewable or sustainable. Fissile material is a fuel, and it will run out eventually, just like fossil fuels (just much, much later). We have to eventually move to an energy infrastructure that relies entirely on renewable sources. We might have 100 years or 10,000 years, but that move has to happen. There is no alternative. You clearly recognize that yourself by calling nuclear power a "bridge." It's a bridge because it's temporary. It gets us from A to B. But we have to eventually get to B, and B is renewable/sustainable energy.
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
29,272
10,964
113
That’s pretty interesting. I think gobbling up huge amounts of real estate for renewable equipment and facilities isn’t an answer. I don’t know why we would want to grow this technology anyway when nukes provide such a clear and clean way forward. Small modular reactors and fourth generation reactors are the bridge we are looking for. Much more bang for the buck with nukes. Moreover, these batteries are only useful for renewable energy production which is not practicable for large scale use.
Nuclear energy is our current solution. It’s the most proven non-polluting energy production method. I’ve never understood the liberals’ (mostly) opposition it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorbmyboy

Victorbmyboy

Senior
Nov 10, 2014
2,199
1,816
113
Nuclear energy is our current solution. It’s the most proven non-polluting energy production method. I’ve never understood the liberals’ (mostly) opposition it.
It’s unreal how many skeletal remains of failed nuclear projects there are.
 

Cortez88

All-Big Ten
Jan 7, 2017
3,602
4,234
113
Oil is not a growth industry. We're long past the oil boom.

It's not going away any time soon as you said because it permeates in rubber, plastic, etc but, like coal, like propane, as an energy source it's post peak so if you want to experience an economic boom...keep your eyes on the future of energy as it has the highest potential of job creation and expansion.

All that being said, there are concerns that the keystone is actually bad for the economy. It's not like it's set up to provide quicker and more efficient access to our refineries. No, they want to use our land (have the govt reposses it via eminent domain) to get it to the gulf.

Of course a large chunk of the pipeline is going through Indian reservations cuz, that's the American way, but it's also planned to go through private property. Hopefully not through yours. Lol
Oil is in a ton of different products as you mention. However, I recently read that about 90% of current oil use is for petro. That may include jet fuel too, but the lions share is for cars and trucks.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,991
113
trucks.
One of the few things we usually agree on is energy policy, but your continually growing disdain for renewable energy is insensible. Nukes are the answer now. But nukes are not renewable or sustainable. Fissile material is a fuel, and it will run out eventually, just like fossil fuels (just much, much later). We have to eventually move to an energy infrastructure that relies entirely on renewable sources. We might have 100 years or 10,000 years, but that move has to happen. There is no alternative. You clearly recognize that yourself by calling nuclear power a "bridge." It's a bridge because it's temporary. It gets us from A to B. But we have to eventually get to B, and B is renewable/sustainable energy.
I don’t disdain renewables. I first put solar on my home in the 70’s after the tax incentive response to the oil crisis. That was a.thermal system for hot water. I have solar cells on my home now. 60 + years ago I wrote my high school physics paper on producing electric current from sunlight. My gripe isn‘t with the concept, it’s with the dumbassed way we finance it. We definitely should do the basic research. The retail subsidies are a waste of money and IMO inhibits scientific development by distorting the need for R&D.

That being said, I’m convinced that renewables cannot be the long term answer. It will always be an adjunct. I guess I might have disdain for those who claim that renewables are the answer. Superconductivity is the game changer we need, along with fusion.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,991
113
Oil is in a ton of different products as you mention. However, I recently read that about 90% of current oil use is for petro. That may include jet fuel too, but the lions share is for cars and trucks.
It’s my understanding that gasoline and diesel fuel are a necessary product of refining. While the ratios might change, if we only produce petro-chemicals we will have a shit-ton of gasoline and diesel to get rid of. Maybe somebody who knows more about this can explain further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57

Victorbmyboy

Senior
Nov 10, 2014
2,199
1,816
113
trucks.

I don’t disdain renewables. I first put solar on my home in the 70’s after the tax incentive response to the oil crisis. That was a.thermal system for hot water. I have solar cells on my home now. 60 + years ago I wrote my high school physics paper on producing electric current from sunlight. My gripe isn‘t with the concept, it’s with the dumbassed way we finance it. We definitely should do the basic research. The retail subsidies are a waste of money and IMO inhibits scientific development by distorting the need for R&D.

That being said, I’m convinced that renewables cannot be the long term answer. It will always be an adjunct. I guess I might have disdain for those who claim that renewables are the answer. Superconductivity is the game changer we need, along with fusion.
My problem with renewables is the space needed. They take up a ton of real estate. How much ground will green energy chew up? Included bio products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,719
8,991
113
It’s unreal how many skeletal remains of failed nuclear projects there are.
The endless protests and lawsuits made the costs too high. Another example of the stupidity of Americans.
Like it has done to everything else, politics has f*cked up energy.

The list of important matters politics has messed up is long. Hell, we can’t even fix a bridge or decide on how long voting polls should be open without our elected assholes in congress acting like assholes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

Joe_Hoopsier

All-Big Ten
Dec 21, 2010
4,592
1,765
113
My problem with renewables is the space needed. They take up a ton of real estate. How much ground will green energy chew up? Included bio products.
There will be a narrative shifts shortly about this. It will highly politicized that its ok to cut down trees for real state needed for Renewables. Then in 20 years we will say that the problems created were just unintended consequences.

Of course it won't be this exact same scenario, but the basic premise has been proven over and over, every time we chase emotional driven policies.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,983
13,644
113


This is the same administration that has repeatedly tried to limit domestic drilling, right?
That is a bad look for the Administration, especially with the UN report on climate change that came out this week.

For those interested, in 1982 Exxon commissioned a report that predicted a 1 degree rise in 40 years if we didn't address fossil fuels. We are very close to that 1 degree. We may not make that 1 degree, but we'll be very close. This stuff is happening.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/global_temperature_over_my_lifetime.png
 

Victorbmyboy

Senior
Nov 10, 2014
2,199
1,816
113
I


This is the same administration that has repeatedly tried to limit domestic drilling, right?
ts a double edged sword. Low crude prices foster less domestic activity. OPEC needs prices to be at certain levels to fund its kingdom. The fracing industry is getting more efficient every time opec tries to bring prices down. Rig count is over 100% higher than last year. We where stacking rigs before the pandemic as we had glut of oil. By the time the pandemic really hit we had oil in negative territory. They can’t and won’t limit oil to much as that would be complete suicide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmac76