I don’t think SD has to worry too much about the fracking issue.

But whatever the argument against the pine-line the point is moot because the GOP will just pass it next year anyway.

But the whole low oil price thing is just to put Russia on the ropes anyway (Gold as well).

I think it is very likely most cars will not be running on Gas in 15-20 years (or get somewhere north of 50 MPG).

We really really won’t need Oil as much as we used to in 15-20 years is the thing, so it is kind of a waste really.

The fracking pollution is incredible. People need to hang for that; they need to be held fully responsible for bringing potable water into those areas for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.

As for Keystone, I think the major objections are related to environmental concerns. There are some who contend that we have no obligation to risk oil spills and violate some property rights for Canada’s sake (the main beneficiary).

Here’s some info:

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

[quote=spdrun]Oil as energy is so last century. We should be moving to nuclear, hydro, and renewables for energy, not digging for dead dinos.

Besides, whether they admit it or not Keystone XL is primarily an EXPORT pipeline. I mean — why build it from Canada to the Gulf?

Anyway, I suspect that this will be revisited after the new Congresspeople are seated in 2015.[/quote]

You do realize that most of the US refining facilities reside near the gulf. Want to know why? Well those big oil tankers that import our oil typically are unloaded in the gulf and it makes a lot of sense to have your refineries close to your crude import facilities. Could it be used for export, yeah sure, but that’s not why they want to transport it to the gulf.

Nuclear is the only other real option and most that oppose Keystone oppose Nuclear as well. We should be developing Thorium Nuclear but we aren’t because that would take leadership and innovation from Washington that isn’t there.

The problem is most people don’t have the education and knowledge to make an informed decision of energy technology. Most people don’t under thermodynamics. A gallon of gasoline is relatively stable, lightweight and has quite a bit of energy content. No lithium ion battery is even close in terms of energy density. Without running the math I don’t know that’s it’s thermodynamically possible to get 50 mpg in a 3000+ lb vehicle. Can we even build an engine that is that much more efficient.

If we convert to an electric vehicle fleet where does the electricity come from. Are we going to cover the Mohave desert with solar thermal farms? Are we going to build hundreds of new Natural Gas power stations? Are we going to build new nuclear power stations? That stuff needs to be in the works soon if we’re actually going to get there in the next 10 years and I don’t see it.

livinincali: exactly right about thorium.

As far as energy storage tech: you’re forgetting about hydrogen, either to power an internal combustion engine, or to run fuel cells. You’re also supposing that we need most cars/trucks to have a range of > 100 miles. We already have electric vehicles essentially with unlimited range: trains.

If we offload most goods and medium-distance personal transport onto highly automated trains, and have vehicle rental easily available at the endpoints (think Zipcar), we could make do with 100 mile range electric cars.

As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It’s perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.

[quote=spdrun]
As far as energy storage tech: you’re forgetting about hydrogen, either to power an internal combustion engine, or to run fuel cells. You’re also supposing that we need most cars/trucks to have a range of > 100 miles. We already have electric vehicles essentially with unlimited range: trains.
[/quote]

Hydrogen doesn’t exist as H2 in large quantities naturally in the world. It has to be extracted from H2O or more commonly CH4 (methane). Extracting it from H2O takes a lot of energy. Extracting it from CH4 produces CO2. Hydrogen fuel cells are decent but they aren’t a panacea. It could work I just don’t know if it’s really that much better than compressed natural gas. Don’t waste time with extracting the H2 and having to store it in a highly pressurized state when I can just use the CH4 in a lower pressurized state.

As for trains the long haul ones use diesel generators to generate the electricity. I know commuter trains back east mostly use electrified tracks, but most of that electricity is coming from fossil fuel power stations. If we’re willing to go the nuclear route then going with electricity make more sense but uranium nuclear or even thorium nuclear would take years to build out in the current environment. You’d have to be planning/r&d it now if you want it online in 10 years.

[quote]
As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It’s perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.[/quote]

If you drive the prius right you can get 50 mpg or more but most people aren’t that willing to drive 55-60 mph on the highway to get that mileage. I think the more realistic mileage is probably 40-45 mpg. So maybe we’re close but is everybody ready to trade in their SUVs, sports cars, and trucks to drive priuses. I don’t see a pickup truck or SUV getting anywhere close to 50 mpg in the next 10 years. The thermodynamics just don’t seem to be there.

livinincali:

Yes, I’m aware. Hydrogen is a STORAGE tech. Not a fuel. CH4 is a fuel. Hydrogen takes a bit more energy to extract than is garnered from using it in a fuel cell, but batteries have storage/charging losses as well.

As far as trains, there should be a national project to electrify all of the main freight routes. If the USSR could do it in the 50s and 60s after a major crippling war, we can do it more efficiently today.

In the beginning, the objection to Keystone was because of the environment. However, how, it’s more symbolic. That’s because the oil from Canada are being shipped by train today instead of pipeline. Just because you prevent the pipeline doesn’t mean that will stop the extraction oil from the oil sand. So, by objecting to Keystone, it’s actually more damaging to the environment than building the pipeline. Since train are more prone to crash and spill oil than pipeline.