Energy East Pipeline

[fredinno]

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

Quote

The Energy East pipeline is a proposed oil pipeline in Canada. It would deliver oil from Western Canada to Eastern Canada, from receipt points in Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and port terminals in New Brunswick and possibly Quebec. The TC PipeLines project would convert about 3,000 kilometres of natural gas pipeline, which currently carries natural gas from Alberta to the Ontario-Quebec border, to oil transportation. New pipeline, pump stations, and tank facilities would also be constructed. The CA$12 billion pipeline would be the longest in North America when complete.

What do you guys think? It sounds pretty good to me, and I'm Canadian.

[Findthepin1]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

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

What do you guys think? It sounds pretty good to me, and I'm Canadian.

Is it financially worth it?

[fredinno]

32 minutes ago, Findthepin1 said:

Is it financially worth it?

Well, maybe? Currently, Eastern Canada is an importer of oil from outside Canada because it lacks the infrastructure to import the heavy crude of Alberta.

[NuclearNut]

Oh, god, why do we have to bring THIS discussion into Science & Spaceflight?  Do you know what kind of political hell you will bring to this island of reason in a deep, dark abyss of fear and illogic?

[K^2]

I'm skeptical of any project that expands infrastructure reliant on hydrocarbon use as fuel. Building new pipelines now is a bit like getting into mortgage business in 2006. Time scale's going to be a bit longer, but the investments are larger as well, and I'm not sure we're going to hit payoff on these.

At least, that's the hope. If oil use isn't going to start a sharp decline by 2020, we're all in trouble.

[fredinno]

34 minutes ago, NuclearNut said:

Oh, god, why do we have to bring THIS discussion into Science & Spaceflight?  Do you know what kind of political hell you will bring to this island of reason in a deep, dark abyss of fear and illogic?

Let's hope it doesn't.

[Nibb31]

We should be trying to rely less on burning stuff for producing power, rather than trying to find ways to burn more stuff.

[Findthepin1]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

We should be trying to rely less on burning stuff for producing power, rather than trying to find ways to burn more stuff.

The former is more expensive and harder to implement than the latter. Admittedly the long-term benefit is quite good, but at present we simply cannot afford to stop burning stuff for energy on a global scale. Maybe in a few decades. We still have enough stuff to burn to last us at least that long, I think. I agree we should try it once we have the capability without reducing the economy much. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Findthepin1

[fredinno]

See, this thread isn't turning into one big pile of sh*t...

[StrandedonEarth]

I wonder if there will be as many NIMBYites east of Alberta as there are to the west. It reaches ridiculous proportions sometimes, and if they succeed it costs jobs. I know jobs aren't the most important thing in the world compared to wanton environmental destruction, but most companies are learning to embrace safety (and being good corporate neighbors) if they wish to continue operating. Most major disasters are caused by human error not mechanical failure, often driven by managerial pressure. There is also a lot of resistance here in the Fraser Valley because crops don't like to grow after heavy equipment has been trampling all over the ground, never mind if there's a spill.

My main issue with pumping and shipping bitumen (heavy tar-sand crude) or diluted bitumen ("dilbit") instead of cracking it into lighter oil products first is that if it spills in water then it sinks out of sight (and the parties responsible hope it becomes out of mind) and is immensely more difficult to recover and clean up. Lighter oils are easier to recover because it floats, and hopefully some eventually evaporates . It's also easier to burn off.

[Camacha]

12 hours ago, K^2 said:

At least, that's the hope. If oil use isn't going to start a sharp decline by 2020, we're all in trouble.

The sad truth probably is that we will burn up all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on. Even if the developed nations gets their act together, which they currently do not seem to manage, the developing nations will feel it is not their responsibility to ease up on something that has benefited others for many decades and that will help their own growth. Their position would not even be that unreasonable, but it will mean Earth gets to suffer quite a bit more.

The only way of realistically preventing this is making alternative energy cheaper than the ever harder to mine fossil fuels. I do not see that happening in 4 years, and probably not even in 24 years.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Camacha

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I wonder if there will be as many NIMBYites east of Alberta as there are to the west. It reaches ridiculous proportions sometimes, and if they succeed it costs jobs. I know jobs aren't the most important thing in the world compared to wanton environmental destruction, but most companies are learning to embrace safety (and being good corporate neighbors) if they wish to continue operating. Most major disasters are caused by human error not mechanical failure, often driven by managerial pressure. There is also a lot of resistance here in the Fraser Valley because crops don't like to grow after heavy equipment has been trampling all over the ground, never mind if there's a spill.

My main issue with pumping and shipping bitumen (heavy tar-sand crude) or diluted bitumen ("dilbit") instead of cracking it into lighter oil products first is that if it spills in water then it sinks out of sight (and the parties responsible hope it becomes out of mind) and is immensely more difficult to recover and clean up. Lighter oils are easier to recover because it floats, and hopefully some eventually evaporates . It's also easier to burn off.

Most of the line is existing gas pipeline being converted to bitumen heavy oil pipeline (Alberta is becoming a net importer of Nat. Gas due to oil sands, and so the pipeline is no longer as useful). And the NIMBY is strong in every developed nation apparently. Atlantic Canada and Alberta are pretty down for jobs though, so this might be a good time for this to happen. It also goes through (relatively) geologically stable areas, unlike the ticking time bomb of the BC coastal and rocky mountain cordillera .

[Camacha]

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

NIMBYites

To be fair, this reaction is only logical. Even if you ignore that oil companies are not always forthcoming when it comes to damages caused, you cannot repair torn up communities and broken families that cannot do the thing they have done for generations any more - even with the best intentions.

[StrandedonEarth]

24 minutes ago, Camacha said:

To be fair, this reaction is only logical. Even if you ignore that oil companies are not always forthcoming when it comes to damages caused, you cannot repair torn up communities and broken families that cannot do the thing they have done for generations any more - even with the best intentions.

I'm not saying it's not logical, I just find it amusing when people are all for a project as long as it's not near them. That's quite different from the BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).

As far as the pipelines go (and I'm a block or two away from Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain pipeline that they want to expand) I'm on the fence. It's certainly a riskier neighborhood (the overdue-for-a-major-earthquake BC/Pacific Northwest coast) to build a pipeline, with potentially more dire consequences in case something goes drastically wrong. But they plan to have safeguards in place, and of course there are clear economic benefits (or they wouldn't want to build/expand it). As I said, I have more of an issue with pumping bitumen than the pipeline itself.

Most disasters are from industry wanting to cut costs by cutting corners. The Prince William Sound/Exxon Valdez oil spill (caused by human error, of course) would have been orders of magnitude less if it was a double-hulled tanker. Cost-cutting and negligence also led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that progress usually has a human cost, just as eggs must be broken to make omelettes. Which is tragic for those who catch the short end of the stick.

[Camacha]

31 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I'm not saying it's not logical, I just find it amusing when people are all for a project as long as it's not near them. That's quite different from the BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).

As has been said, it makes sense. There probably are gains to be had, but those are unlikely to end up in the pockets of those being at risk. The rewards for inhabitants do not appear large, but the potential loss could be catastrophic. Lose your home, income, livelihood and/or community. It is not like it has not happened in the recent past before.

 

Quote

 

Most disasters are from industry wanting to cut costs by cutting corners. The Prince William Sound/Exxon Valdez oil spill (caused by human error, of course) would have been orders of magnitude less if it was a double-hulled tanker. Cost-cutting and negligence also led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that progress usually has a human cost, just as eggs must be broken to make omelettes. Which is tragic for those who catch the short end of the stick.

 

Who says cost cutting will not happen in this case? There are many reasons why proper maintenance might no longer be done, or investments made. Maybe oil will be replaced faster than expected, or maybe this specific line becomes barely profitable because of geologic or political woes. In those cases, you just have to hope the companies will honour their promises.

[Stargate525]

4 minutes ago, Camacha said:

As has been said, it makes sense. There probably are gains to be had, but those are unlikely to end up in the pockets of those being at risk. The rewards for inhabitants do not appear large, but the potential loss could be catastrophic. Lose your home, income, livelihood and/or community. It is not like it has not happened in the recent past before.

There's a difference between a well that can't get capped and a pipeline rupture. The biggest one I could find on a quick search was about half a million gallons (and that's a VERY high number compared to most spills, which barely ever reach 100k). Pipelines are probably one of the safer ways to transport the stuff. At least, I'd rather a dedicated line for the stuff than having it shipped piecemeal along highways and already overburdened rails.

[Camacha]

1 minute ago, Stargate525 said:

At least, I'd rather a dedicated line for the stuff than having it shipped piecemeal along highways and already overburdened rails.

The question is not whether you would rather have a dedicated line for it, the question is whether you would have a dedicated line for it in your backyard and neighbourhood.

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, Camacha said:

Who says cost cutting will not happen in this case?

Hopefully because companies have learned that cleanup costs and penalties in the billions cost more than proper operation now. And 27 years later, Prince William Sound has not recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill either. Shipping oil around the world isn't a great idea, nor is burning it faster and faster. But people have this strange aversion to paying more than they absolutely have to for anything, especially for their energy. Or their taxes. Funny (and annoying) how the ones who can most afford to pay more fight the hardest against paying more. But then that starts to get into politics. Sure they'll put up solar panels, to look good and for the tax break.

And yes, there is a pipeline pretty much in my backyard, but I'm not worried about it. It's been there for decades. Hm, maybe I should be worried about it, just like I should worry about the overdue 400-year megaquake, or a 1000-year flood, but what's the point? Not much I can do about it, besides make sure that my disaster kit is ready to go.

So yeah, I'm firmly on the fence about these things, there are pro and cons for both sides. I tend to bend with whatever wind is blowing hardest at the time

Edited March 7, 2016 by StrandedonEarth

[Stargate525]

1 hour ago, Camacha said:

The question is not whether you would rather have a dedicated line for it, the question is whether you would have a dedicated line for it in your backyard and neighbourhood.

It's hypocritical to say no. To be fair, if they wanted to take my backyard with eminent domain, I'd sell them the whole lot and move a bit further out. In my neighborhood, yea, no problem. (There's a massive chemical plant five minutes from my house already)

6 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Funny (and annoying) how the ones who can most afford to pay more fight the hardest against paying more.

How do you figure they got that money in the first place? People who aren't concerned about fees, taxes, and penalties are not the ones who have money, for good reason.

[K^2]

7 hours ago, Camacha said:

The sad truth probably is that we will burn up all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on. Even if the developed nations gets their act together, which they currently do not seem to manage, the developing nations will feel it is not their responsibility to ease up on something that has benefited others for many decades and that will help their own growth. Their position would not even be that unreasonable, but it will mean Earth gets to suffer quite a bit more.

The only way of realistically preventing this is making alternative energy cheaper than the ever harder to mine fossil fuels. I do not see that happening in 4 years, and probably not even in 24 years.

I'm not counting on people being responsible. That'd be most naive. I'm talking about the fact that entire first world is going to hit grid parity between fossil and solar on the electrics before the end of the decade. Large number of US states have already hit parity. So have majority of countries in Europe. This isn't a matter of what we want. It's a matter of burning fossils to provide electricity is already becoming non-viable fiscally.

On the flip side, we have transportation. And while it's going to be a long while before we can convert our ships and our aircraft to electric, the total life-time cost of an electric vehicle is already comparable to an air-breather. And the cost of electrics is falling. I can't imagine any reason why I would want to buy another car with a gasoline engine ever again. And in the next few years, we'll see a huge decline in sales for anything that isn't electric.

Tides of technology have turned against fossil fuels. Even with a recent collapse of prices, they are still going to be less viable than the alternatives. The age of gasoline is at an end. The diesel and kerosene will last longer, but their days are numbered as well. Last to go will probably be coal. And I'm sure we'll have coal-burning power plants well into the mid-century, but we are going to hit peak carbon output very soon. Not because of the sign-waving hippies, but because of men and women in white coats trying to make a profit for their corporate bosses.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I'm not counting on people being responsible. That'd be most naive. I'm talking about the fact that entire first world is going to hit grid parity between fossil and solar on the electrics before the end of the decade. Large number of US states have already hit parity. So have majority of countries in Europe. This isn't a matter of what we want. It's a matter of burning fossils to provide electricity is already becoming non-viable fiscally.

On the flip side, we have transportation. And while it's going to be a long while before we can convert our ships and our aircraft to electric, the total life-time cost of an electric vehicle is already comparable to an air-breather. And the cost of electrics is falling. I can't imagine any reason why I would want to buy another car with a gasoline engine ever again. And in the next few years, we'll see a huge decline in sales for anything that isn't electric.

Tides of technology have turned against fossil fuels. Even with a recent collapse of prices, they are still going to be less viable than the alternatives. The age of gasoline is at an end. The diesel and kerosene will last longer, but their days are numbered as well. Last to go will probably be coal. And I'm sure we'll have coal-burning power plants well into the mid-century, but we are going to hit peak carbon output very soon. Not because of the sign-waving hippies, but because of men and women in white coats trying to make a profit for their corporate bosses.

I think the first to go will be coal- the non-GHG problems are substantial, and its only advantage is price, something that gas is really starting to undercut.

Oil is likely the last to go, because coming up with a really good dense energy source that is efficient and cheap is not easy. There are alternatives, but they still lag behind power-plant electric renewable intrustion. It's still going to be required for plastics and other materials though, so drilling will continue for a long time (not for burning though)

I'd say oil combustion lasts to another 40-50 years, so this is a decent investment.

[K^2]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

I think the first to go will be coal- the non-GHG problems are substantial, and its only advantage is price, something that gas is really starting to undercut.

Oil is likely the last to go, because coming up with a really good dense energy source that is efficient and cheap is not easy. There are alternatives, but they still lag behind power-plant electric renewable intrustion. It's still going to be required for plastics and other materials though, so drilling will continue for a long time (not for burning though)

I'd say oil combustion lasts to another 40-50 years, so this is a decent investment.

Cost is the only way to compete with electricity right now. Environmental concerns will always come second to price.

Energy density of batteries is high enough. The only application we have where it's not is aircraft. And for large ships, it's still going to be cheaper to go with diesel. These are the only two applications where we can't go electric right now. That's not enough to keep expanding our infrastructure. Once street cars, trains, and trucks are all electric, the oil demand will collapse to a tiny fraction of what it is today.

[Darnok]

8 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Cost is the only way to compete with electricity right now. Environmental concerns will always come second to price.

Energy density of batteries is high enough. The only application we have where it's not is aircraft. And for large ships, it's still going to be cheaper to go with diesel. These are the only two applications where we can't go electric right now. That's not enough to keep expanding our infrastructure. Once street cars, trains, and trucks are all electric, the oil demand will collapse to a tiny fraction of what it is today.

So how much energy does cost production of solar panel?
And how long this panel has to work to generate that amount of energy?

Also once we go 100% to electric... how you are going to produce, so much power?

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

So how much energy does cost production of solar panel?
And how long this panel has to work to generate that amount of energy?

Also once we go 100% to electric... how you are going to produce, so much power?

Assuming it's electric, and not alage-biofuel.

[WinkAllKerb'']

me think it will make some peoples work, and will make some others people whine.

like usual ...

(in/out)

Edited March 7, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''