Re: Developer Abandons Keystone XL Pipeline Project, Ending Decade-Long Battle

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Shobith

unread,
Jun 11, 2021, 10:55:03 PMJun 11
to
In article <Z7SwI.120602$Sx7.1...@fx18.iad>
Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2021 3:46 PM, Molly Bolt wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
> >> On 6/10/21 3:03 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:57:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The company behind the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline said Wednesday
> >>>> it's officially terminating the project. TC Energy already had suspended
> >>>> construction in January when President Biden revoked a key cross-border
> >>>> presidential permit. The announcement ends a more than decade-long battle that
> >>>> came to signify the debate over whether fossil fuels should be left in the
> >>>> ground to address climate change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Environmentalists opposed the pipeline in part because of the oil it would carry
> >>>> — oil sands crude from Alberta. It requires more processing than most oil, so
> >>>> producing it emits more greenhouse gases.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004908006/developer-abandons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-ending-decade-long-battle
> >>>>
> >>>> It was always a bad idea.
> >>>
> >>> A million barrels a day is more than the capacity of the controversial
> >>> Keystone XL pipeline, 830,000 barrels — a fact that has led some oil
> >>> industry analysts to declare that heavy crude from Alberta’s tar sands
> >>> will find a way to refineries regardless of Keystone XL’s fate. Even
> >>> The New York Times has supported this claim. An October 30 Times news
> >>> story, headlined “Looking for a Way Around Keystone XL, Canadian Oil
> >>> Hits the Rails,” said, “Even if President Obama rejects the pipeline,
> >>> it might not matter much” because of rail’s emergence.
> >>>
> >>> See how stupid you look, Rudy?
> >> Why use a clean pipeline,
> >
> > Please englighten us as to an example of a "clean" oil pipeline.
> >
> >> which even the administration admits is
> >> better, when truck after CO2 farting truck can be used instead!!!
> >
> > Rail, NOT trucks will replace the pipelines, and trains require much less power to MAINTAIN a fixed speed than a truck (even if more much more energy is required to accelerate the train to a given speed), making them more fuel-efficient than trucks over a large distance, and since many trains are augmented by electric power or are completely electric, they are more environmentally sound that a farting truck or trumptard.
>
> "Electric locomotives are ideal for commuter rail service with
> frequent stops. Electric locomotives are used on freight routes
> with consistently high traffic volumes, or in areas with advanced
> rail networks."
>
> "The chief disadvantage of electrification is the high cost for
> infrastructure: overhead lines or third rail, substations, and
> control systems. ... Because railroad infrastructure is
> privately owned in the U.S., railroads are unwilling to make
> the necessary investments for electrification."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>
> For the type of long-haul cross-country freight used to transport
> oil, locomotive engines use diesel engines (i.e. fossil fuel) to
> power on-board generators which supply the energy to the electric
> motors that turn the wheels. These engines are actually diesel,
> not electric. And yes, diesel freight trains are still more fuel
> efficient than diesel trucks.

You cannot eliminate fossil products. Electricity cannot
lubricate moving parts. Plant lubricants are not suitable for
all purposes.

Just Wondering

unread,
Jun 11, 2021, 10:59:25 PMJun 11
to
On 6/11/2021 8:51 PM, Shobith wrote:
> In article <Z7SwI.120602$Sx7.1...@fx18.iad>
> Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/11/2021 3:46 PM, Molly Bolt wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/21 3:03 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:57:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The company behind the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline said Wednesday
>>>>>> it's officially terminating the project. TC Energy already had suspended
>>>>>> construction in January when President Biden revoked a key cross-border
>>>>>> presidential permit. The announcement ends a more than decade-long battle that
>>>>>> came to signify the debate over whether fossil fuels should be left in the
>>>>>> ground to address climate change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Environmentalists opposed the pipeline in part because of the oil it would carry
>>>>>> — oil sands crude from Alberta. It requires more processing than most oil, so
>>>>>> producing it emits more greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004908006/developer-abandons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-ending-decade-long-battle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was always a bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> A million barrels a day is more than the capacity of the controversial
>>>>> Keystone XL pipeline, 830,000 barrels — a fact that has led some oil
>>>>> industry analysts to declare that heavy crude from Alberta’s tar sands
>>>>> will find a way to refineries regardless of Keystone XL’s fate. Even
>>>>> The New York Times has supported this claim. An October 30 Times news
>>>>> story, headlined “Looking for a Way Around Keystone XL, Canadian Oil
>>>>> Hits the Rails,†said, “Even if President Obama rejects the pipeline,
>>>>> it might not matter much†because of rail’s emergence.
I agree, but your example doesn't support the argument. When
oil is used as a lubricant, it isn't burned, i.e. it is not
a fuel. The same with plastics. Oil used to make a plastic
whatever is not burned so is not a fuel.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages