Ieee Article: Electric Cars Unclean at any Speed?

If you would listen and read, instead of talk and be beligerant, the data is there.
Prices for existing pipelines, contract prices for keystone pipeline sections that have been built, prices for rail transport. Yes there is a possiblility that the companies building the pipeline may be less profitable than government subsidized rail that charges a higher price, but there is no evidence anywhere that oil companies will pay more per barrel to use the pipeline than rail. None. You got a wrong idea in your head, and now you are trying to spread it. We can agree that you disagree with my data. Can we also agree that you have not looked at any data. Again I never said the pipeline would be cheaper to build. I said that oil companies would pay less to use it. I suppose you think because of your lack of data the US government should block the pipeline and help out the railroads with fraight, because in your mind it might kind of possibly be cheaper for the railroads, and they are all good guys. I mean they do transport a lot of coal why not block efficient pipelines so rail can transport more oil as well.


I mean what is the point of your arguing. Rail is efficient and profitable without government subsidies. Cost of shipping oil by rail will only get cheaper and safer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/us/as-amtrak-aid-ends-states-face-decision-on-local-routes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Fires rage 24 hours after train carrying oil derails in Quebec town near Canada-US border - World News

Again, back to the important things on this thread. Oil sands oil is happening with or without keystone. That makes using gasoline dirtier, even as the cleaner grid makes bev and phev more clean.

 

^Austin, I'm not arguing, you're the one going around in circles. LOL

You're now shoving words in my mouth. No we can't agree that you know everything and I know nothing... The discussion is done as far as I can tell, I won't be responding to you anymore since you're obviously not interested in dialogue and you're just trying to argue. I have typed plenty information earlier in the topic for others to read and compare against your ideological stance.

I come from only one bias: I want what is better for the environment and energy that is more efficient. I am pro electric cars, and I think they are the future.

If the government can stop Keystone XL from being constructed, I'm for it. Why? Because its just as easy to ship it via rail to refineries anywhere on the continent, and there is less environmental impact.

And yes, I think investments in rail serve a better purpose, a multi-use purpose rather than just making an oil giant even bigger. If the government can step in, protect the environment by stopping a pipeline, and then provide investments in rail I think its a great thing.

You can disagree, but don't be so arrogant about it.

BTW, I never said government should subsidize either pipeline or rail development for oil shipping. Again, you have a problem with stating things that I've never said. Its dishonest, and again its arrogant.

 

BJ, I agree with your end position, but you refusal to cite sources harms your argument.
But when you complain someone is "shoving words in my mouth" and then in the very next sentence do the exact thing to the other person you loose all credibility.

 

There are couple of faulty points that really hurt your posts. The idea that pipeline and pipeline equipment wears out faster than railroad equipment is a fantasy. It may work on the uneducated reader, but not an engineer who has decades of working with heavy equipment. If the first assumption is faulty, don't expect the rest of the discussion to become correct at some later point.

Another faulty point is that pipeline leaks are normal. Most of the time the cause is faulty or inadequate maintenance, almost never inadequate engineering. The most effective prevention of pipeline, rail, tanker, or any other oil transportation method is proper building, operating, and maintenance regulations. Having read an enormous number of failure reports on leak causes, the overseeing organizations are usually critical in creating a lot of the faults. You are indicating technology is the issue when in fact, proper oversight is the problem. You CANNOT point to a lousy organization (e.g. BP) and then use their failings as being the standard for the industry. A lot of oil companies have highly competent engineers, operators and overseers, but not every company.

Third faulty point is "the pressurization damages the integrity of it". Having spent years with 10 to 1500 psi lines running just a few feet from my head, I know this is just, well, silly. (How often have the brake lines in a car blow up because "the pressurization damages the integrity of it"?)

I am not supporting any position supporting or opposing the rail companies. I like intelligent discussion, but to be intelligent, it has to be based on facts, not opinions.

 

... thankfully not all Northeast refineries are closing, but I am just saying many are and the US refinery map you showed looks out-dated...sometimes refineries close but could re-open so its hard to say for sure.

 

You wish to block the Canadian government from having the pipeline, but not oil sands syn oil. If you block the pipeline, you are removing competition from rail and trucking for transportation. This is a defacto government subsidy.

You say I am arrogant. That may be the case. But I am not wrong here. If the oil companies and the canadian government want to build a pipeline because they think its in there best interests, why should the US government block it? The only legitimate reasons are they believe rail and/or trucks are vastly better for the environment, or if they want to block trade from canada. The idea that you think rail is less expensive is not a legitimate reason for the US government to block it. That just would mean trans canada was making a bad investment. Somehow you think you understand the numbers better than the parties that will profit from it is quite aragent, especially as you site no source of your expertise or another that agrees with you. IF you disagree state your expertise, or a sight that has figures for rail transport of oil dropping bellow pipeline charges.

 

I was responding to the original problem post, which was the intent to show him how silly it is. Its equally silly to make a false equivalency that I've shoved words in his mouth when I'm trying to make the point he has done so the entire time we've discussed this, and I was doing it in jest as a response.

I was honest and forthright throughout the entire discussion, I advised I wasn't an expert, but relied on others who have more knowledge with the topics. I was the only person here to say there isn't enough data to prove 100% that either have significant cost savings over the other, which was the point. That's the only truth, we don't have data here to prove either/or, we have generalities and scenarios that can increase or decrease costs for each option that were discussed. Austin pretends he knows it all and provides a few links - none of which are peer reviewed studies, just articles in media - which really proves nothing.

My point, and I'm truly done posting here after this post since I've written enough on this topic, is that given that rail and pipeline are both options and neither will lower or increase the world price of oil, I prefer rail for various reasons.

1) Environmentally its better on average to run rail cars with oil. Pipelines leak. They leak a LOT as they age. TransCanada itself as a corporation doesn't have a great track record. But do trains have environmental issues? Yes, they can as well. Do your own research if you're interested, the evidence I've read leans me strongly toward rail for environmental purposes, despite the recent disaster in Quebec reminding us its not perfect.

2) Rail investments have multiple purposes, not just a singular use. You can transport far more than oil with improved rail networks. And oil is able to go anywhere with rail. You can send it to a refinery anywhere via rail, with Keystone XL the end points are in one direction.

3) The cost can be debated over and over and over and over, but Keystone XL will not lower oil prices on the world market. The cost we're debating is the cost of the oil company to ship the product, not the price you'll pay at the pump.

4) On this request for links..... If you want a generic "link" why not read something simple like this, which discusses the trans Alaska pipeline. Now that its an aged product, they are having a huge problem with upkeep and it may go dormant:

Tariff fight resurrects dispute over Alaska pipeline's life expectancy | Alaska Dispatch

This is a pipeline that began in 1977. It is 35 years old, and it may shut down in a few years time. That is roughly a 40 year life span if it does end up shutting down soon.

Not every pipeline is created equal (tar sands oil will flow for a long time), but who takes care of a pipeline when a corporation no longer has profit from it? This is a big question not even raised thus far, and a huge environmental impact people don't contemplate. This article doesn't really provide much information, but I'd like to see a peer reviewed, scientific study showing the full history of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline and see what its full cost has been just to study. I don't have

Linking a few articles like Marketplace or etc. isn't really backing up anything, but rather just a link to an article that isn't a peer reviewed major study. I'm not interested in an online "battle of the links" to pretend I am the expert when I am not. Too often you see these online forums where people link and link and link and they themselves don't admit they really aren't an expert. You can probably tell, I may be new to PriusChat, but I'm not new to online forums. I'm well aware of how things run in the land of Internet forums, and a battle of the links isn't what I'm interested in. I'm not going to pretend I'm something that I'm not.

I am the only person to have offered my background... I'm in the IT industry and have a job in telecommunications. I at least admit I'm going on the advice of others, seems like a lot of pretense in this discussion. Its unfortunate.

That's my last word on this topic, I look forward to other topics because this one certainly has went into the crapper. The original topic was an article bashing electric car technology, not Keystone XL pipeline.

 

Did you read it?

It has rates for the 800 mile pipeline through harsh and cold conditions should be an indication of what an easier to build pipeline must bill. It is one of the numbers used, along with construction costs for the proposed new pipeline, and argues against your we do not have any idea about costs or maintenance.

That is quite a long useful life for the pipeline as it was completed in 1979, 34 years ago. It may last another 62 years if there is oil to pump through it. What are the issues with its useful life? The first is the owners have an incentive to understate it to pay less property tax! The pipeline needs to be regulated and maintained, but the biggest spill had to do with human sabotage, pipeline's design has stood the test of time.

It seems there are some that want to give tax breaks to oil companies and claim the pipeline won't flow if there isn't more oil. The nonsense of a shortened lifetime is entirely political, a low ball figure in order to lower property taxes and oil taxes.

You see, when you post links and read and understand them, it should provide better understanding of the issues. Every alaskan that files for it, gets a check from the state government from oil revenue, revenue that would not exist if the pipeline had not been built. It hardly has had a short useful life.

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most benefits of keystone would apply to canadians not americans if it is built, but I have nothing against canadians. Still I would only use 40 years to calculate the useful life of keystone, given we may have electrified or created other oil alternatives by 2050. That is a life far shorter than TAPS is likely to have, but given its much easier construction should give a good rate to those using the pipeline. IIRC originally the alaskan pipeline was supposed to operate 50 years, it should greatly exceed that useful life.

 

Intelligent posters are not that common. PriusChat has been, and can continue to buck that trend. You certainly should continue to post since all indications are you can contribute a lot.

In this case you need to look beyond the immediate words. You are getting a lot of engagement from the more in-depth knowledge base here, not the usual casual poster. For example Zythryn drives a Tesla Model S. That should quickly explain why he was following you postings closely. If you were to say something faulty about Telsa, would you want him to let your misconception continue? Most of the others, me included were engaged by you initial postings, so don't for a second think that you have recruited opponents.

Do be aware that some posters are have spent their lives working in areas you may have just read about. While they may support you, they cannot let mistakes propagate. In my case, years of specialized training, operating and supervising nuclear power plants forces me to correct mistakes about fluid engineering. It's absolutely not an attack, but if I said what you said about piping failures to a valve, pump, and pipe engineer, I would be sent to the woodshed, and correctly so. It's your choice to take advantage of the knowledge available or decide it's personal instead of professional. In the meantime keep posting.

 

User "FL_Prius_Driver" got it right. My characterization is the elephant and the seven blind men. Each has their point of view and support it vigorously. Yet each has a part of the beast. Heck, even our 'gadflies' can be entertaining.

Bob Wilson

 

An airline acquired and intends to re-purpose primarily for jet fuel output the former, closed Chevron refinery in Trainer, PA.